 |
BorlandTalk.com
Borland discussion newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
EH
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:38 pm Post subject: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opinion |
 |
|
Hello!
The CBuilder debacle drove me to examine the .NET stuff.
I bought some books, that don't give me the answers i search.
Ever time I took a short look into Visual Studio .NET, i quickly closed it:
1. This ugly IDE doesn't let me enough place to design a large form and for
editing my code. Why do i need thousands of dockable windows to the left,
right, top and bottom, for writing an application?
I don't know how VS programmers can seriously develop large applications with
this IDE -> I first have to buy a new 30" monitor and a new gfx card with
high resoultion > 1600 x 1200.
I propose, that Borland - in the future - should offer it's own IDE for their
.NET products.
2. Creating a new form, i saw, that for every control they place dozends lines
of code into my form's module. Why don't they have DFMs where to put all
this initialization stuff, that doesn't interest me to see it in my code?
VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE, that provents me from beeing productive, and
having source code, that is maintaineable.
I hope I'm wrong with what i saw...
3. I know i should finish reading my .NET books to perhaps get the answer:
Can i create my own controls as i'm use to do with CBuilder/Delphi?
Can they be as simply integrated into the VS as with CBuilder/Delphi?
I don't mean ActiveX controls, but pure .NET controls. Are there sources
where i can effectively get these infos?
VCL forms are classes, from which i can simply derive new forms. Can i
also simply do so with .NET any language?
I fear, that jumping to .NET will at least double my development time.
So i hope, that Borland will not finish their VCL and their IDE...
Thanx for comments,
EH :-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Martin Stainsby
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
"EH" <Spam (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote
| Quote: | Hello!
Ever time I took a short look into Visual Studio .NET, i quickly closed
it:
1. This ugly IDE doesn't let me enough place to design a large form and
for
editing my code. Why do i need thousands of dockable windows to the
left,
right, top and bottom, for writing an application?
|
The dockable windows have splitters, you can slide them to the sides giving
almost full screen designing.
| Quote: | 2. Creating a new form, i saw, that for every control they place dozends
lines
of code into my form's module. Why don't they have DFMs where to put
all
this initialization stuff, that doesn't interest me to see it in my
code?
VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE, that provents me from beeing productive,
and
having source code, that is maintaineable.
I hope I'm wrong with what i saw...
|
There are collapsable nodes on the side of the editor where you can
show/hide relevent code with a mouse click
| Quote: | Can i create my own controls as i'm use to do with CBuilder/Delphi?
Can they be as simply integrated into the VS as with CBuilder/Delphi?
I don't mean ActiveX controls, but pure .NET controls. Are there
sources
where i can effectively get these infos?
|
I haven't looked into this but the help has a section on developing windows
forms controls and how to implement them.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EH
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:38 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
| Quote: | The dockable windows have splitters, you can slide them to the sides giving
almost full screen designing.
|
For me, that's nevertheless very uncomfortable.
| Quote: | There are collapsable nodes on the side of the editor where you can
show/hide relevent code with a mouse click
|
Ah, I saw it. I'll have to see, whether this is ok for me.
| Quote: | I haven't looked into this but the help has a section on developing windows
forms controls and how to implement them.
|
I'm just checking it out. Defining properties seems to be ok.
So, perhaps there is still a chance for VS .NET - I'll see...
Thanx,
EH :-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harold Howe [TeamB]
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:54 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
| Quote: | 2. Creating a new form, i saw, that for every control they place
dozends lines of code into my form's module. Why don't they have DFMs
where to put all this initialization stuff, that doesn't interest me
to see it in my code?
|
This is one of the reasons why having a collapsable editor is so
important when developing a .net app.
I wonder if delphi .net will follow this same approach.
h^2
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Jewell
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:08 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
"EH" <Spam (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote
| Quote: | 1. This ugly IDE doesn't let me enough place to design a large form and
for
editing my code.
|
Exactly the same criticism could be leveled at Borland's .NET dev tools.
Solution :- ditch that antique EGA card now!!! ;-)
| Quote: | Why do i need thousands of dockable windows to the left,
right, top and bottom, for writing an application?
|
When you start (e.g. C#Builder), you get Object Inspector, Project Manager,
Tool Palette, etc -- just the same. Whether you're talking about Borland or
Microsoft, you can set things up so that your IDE windows auto-hide.
| Quote: | I don't know how VS programmers can seriously develop large applications
with
this IDE -> I first have to buy a new 30" monitor and a new gfx card with
high resoultion > 1600 x 1200.
|
I'm using 1280 by 1024 and it's perfectly adequate. Frankly, if your
design-time form is so darn huge that you need to run the development system
at 1600 by 1200, then it might be wise to put a little thought into what
will happen when your app is deployed on Grandma's legacy VGA card......
 )
| Quote: | I propose, that Borland - in the future - should offer it's own IDE for
their
.NET products.
|
Errr......isn't that what they're doing?
| Quote: | 2. Creating a new form, i saw, that for every control they place dozends
lines
of code into my form's module. Why don't they have DFMs where to put
all
this initialization stuff, that doesn't interest me to see it in my
code? |
You won't see that stuff unless you explicitly expand the designer-authored
code. I do agree, though, that it is not as neat as a DFM solution.
| Quote: | VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE, that provents me from beeing productive, and
having source code, that is maintaineable.
|
That is a ridiculous statement without any basis in fact.
| Quote: | I hope I'm wrong with what i saw...
|
It sounds as if you didn't see anything. ;-)
| Quote: | 3. I know i should finish reading my .NET books to perhaps get the answer:
|
I'd go along with that.
| Quote: | Can i create my own controls as i'm use to do with CBuilder/Delphi?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | Can they be as simply integrated into the VS as with CBuilder/Delphi?
|
Yes.
| Quote: | I don't mean ActiveX controls, but pure .NET controls. Are there sources
where i can effectively get these infos?
|
Yes.
Pardon? Oh, alright then. Try www.codeproject.com. There's a lot of good
stuff there, sample .NET code, source for components, etc.
| Quote: | VCL forms are classes, from which i can simply derive new forms. Can i
also simply do so with .NET any language?
|
Yes - you can do form inheritance in .NET.
| Quote: | I fear, that jumping to .NET will at least double my development time.
|
Moving to anything new involves a learning curve.
| Quote: | So i hope, that Borland will not finish their VCL and their IDE...
|
I hope they *do* finish it!
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EH
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:38 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
Thanx for your answers.
| Quote: | I'm using 1280 by 1024 and it's perfectly adequate. Frankly, if your
design-time form is so darn huge that you need to run the development system
at 1600 by 1200, then it might be wise to put a little thought into what
will happen when your app is deployed on Grandma's legacy VGA card......
)
|
Developing big (industrial) database applications often lead to
big forms. This is not at least the customer's wish to see all db fields on one form 
So, having a 900 x 700 form (including tabsheets) is real.
So take 900 x 700 for the form, add 160 pixels to the left for the Toolbox,
220 pixels to the right for the property list and class explorer,
120 pixels to the top for menus etc. and 200 pixels to the bottom for the rest
leads to a min. resolution of 1280 x 1040.
Ok, you're right, a 19" or 20" TFT (!) monitor should be enough ;-)
| Quote: | I propose, that Borland - in the future - should offer it's own IDE for their
.NET products.
Errr......isn't that what they're doing?
|
Don't know. Don't they use the same styled and functioning IDE as VS?
| Quote: | VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE, that provents me from beeing productive, and
having source code, that is maintaineable.
That is a ridiculous statement without any basis in fact.
|
Really?
| Quote: | I hope I'm wrong with what i saw...
It sounds as if you didn't see anything.
|
Few things, perhaps to few at the moment...
..NET is very complex to me at the moment.
| Quote: | Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Fine. |
| Quote: | Pardon? Oh, alright then. Try www.codeproject.com. There's a lot of good
stuff there, sample .NET code, source for components, etc.
|
Thanx.
| Quote: | Yes - you can do form inheritance in .NET.
Fine. |
| Quote: | I hope they *do* finish it!
May be, perhaps, it would be better so. But this would be very painful |
for me and all those, developing large VCL projects - I mean
we have very large projects, that perhaps will never end. A migration
would be very very painful...
May be, if all CBuilder developers in this newsgroup go to .NET,
Borland does not more have to publish the Open Letter ;-)
Thanx for your frank answers,
EH :-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Edward Diener
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:44 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
EH wrote:
| Quote: | Hello!
The CBuilder debacle drove me to examine the .NET stuff.
I bought some books, that don't give me the answers i search.
Ever time I took a short look into Visual Studio .NET, i quickly
closed it:
1. This ugly IDE doesn't let me enough place to design a large form
and for editing my code. Why do i need thousands of dockable
windows to the left, right, top and bottom, for writing an
application? I don't know how VS programmers can seriously
develop large applications with this IDE -> I first have to buy a
new 30" monitor and a new gfx card with high resoultion > 1600 x
1200. I propose, that Borland - in the future - should offer it's
own IDE for their .NET products.
|
There are a million ways to configure the IDE as you like it. In all
honesty, the configuration options dwarf those of C++Builder and CBX.
| Quote: | 2. Creating a new form, i saw, that for every control they place
dozends lines of code into my form's module. Why don't they have
DFMs where to put all this initialization stuff, that doesn't
interest me to see it in my code? VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE,
that provents me from beeing productive, and having source code,
that is maintaineable. I hope I'm wrong with what i saw...
|
Yes, this is different. Initialization is actually added to code rather than
being done automagically from a resource file as in BCB. I too think the BCB
way is cleaner, but the VC++ .NET way lets you see exactly what is happening
more easily. I still opt for BCB/Delphi's .dfm files and using resources to
load values and initialize properties and events. OTOH, events in .NET are
multicast via delegates while in BCB via __closures they are not. BCB does
have Actions instead.
| Quote: | 3. I know i should finish reading my .NET books to perhaps get the
answer: Can i create my own controls as i'm use to do with
CBuilder/Delphi? Can they be as simply integrated into the VS as
with CBuilder/Delphi? I don't mean ActiveX controls, but pure
.NET controls. Are there sources where i can effectively get
these infos? VCL forms are classes, from which i can simply
derive new forms. Can i also simply do so with .NET any language?
|
Yes to all your questions. The functionality and extensibility of Visual
Studio .NET 2003 is better than anything MS has ever done.
| Quote: |
I fear, that jumping to .NET will at least double my development time.
So i hope, that Borland will not finish their VCL and their IDE...
|
If one is honest, Visual Studio .NET 2003 is an awesome achievement in the
Windows programming area. This is why Borland has become so incredibly
disappointing in their approach to C++ programmers. MS puts out an
incredible development environment for C++ ( and C# programmers ), using
ideas now which Borland developed themselves about 7-8 years ago, while
Borland has done practically nothing in that time to improve their IDE and
development support for C++ programmers. It is doubly sad because Borland
had such a huge head start over anything MS had done via RAD development in
C++ and they have thrown it all away on bad management and refusal to
realize the importance of C++ as a programming language. I am truly afraid,
given this letter Open Letter fiasco and the state of CBX, that Borland's
support for C++ development will soon be history.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Martin Stainsby
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:45 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
"EH" <Spam (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote
A point to consider.....The .Net framework isn't a finished article as yet.
One almost shockable exclusion is that the floating ability of the toolbars
isn't implemented yet. Personally I would have thought this would have been
a standard `must have` for windows apps. I read that this functionality will
be implemented, but who knows when. I have bought a third party
toolbar/menu/dockable windows component, because for me they are
indispensable
On the other hand VCL toolbars are not very good either so maybe all's fair
in love and war on that respect.:)
When I got VS Studio I was mainly wanting VC++, but I have been pleasantly
surprised by C# and overall I think it's a very good windows development
tool.
The included windows forms components are nowhere near as abundant as the
included vcl components in cbuilder but I'm sure they will get added to as
in future versions.
Another point, I watched the DotNet show on msdn and they demonstrated the
Quake source code being run on both native and managed C++. the managed
compiled code ran 18% slower than the native code.
From a personal point of view, I need a windows development environment and
VS Studio.Net 2003 Pro upgrade cost about £250 compared with CBX £400
something for Borland to consider because CBuilder and Delphi are qualifying
upgrade products.
CBX seems to be crammed full of features that I would never use, and I get
the `patchwork quilt` feeling of awkwardness with all that wxwindows thingy.
CBuilder was ideal for me, everything I could ask for. Unfortunately it's
now kaput.The CBX download in it's present state of incompleteness was
totally useless for my needs, I hope the finished article is going to be
suitable for the many people on these ng's they really do deserve that, for
all the support they have given Borland over the years.
Hope this doesn't seem like a rant, I just need something to fit my bill and
will watch CBX's windows rad through these ng's. If it turns out to be
really good then I will probably buy it, if I can afford it. In the mean
time I'll be giving Visual Studio a chance to impress.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dave Jewell
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:01 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
"EH" <Spam (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote
| Quote: | Developing big (industrial) database applications often lead to
big forms. This is not at least the customer's wish to see all db fields
on one form |
OK - in that case, you should be using a big industrial monitor. ;-)
| Quote: | Don't know. Don't they use the same styled and functioning IDE as VS?
|
Well, it is perhaps all too easy to form that impression, but I have it on
good authority that at least *some* of the C# Builder IDE was written by
Borland. ;-)
| Quote: | VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE, that provents me from beeing productive,
and
having source code, that is maintaineable.
That is a ridiculous statement without any basis in fact.
Really?
|
Yes, really. If you want to make that sort of statement, you need to back
it up with hard evidence. I don't want to type-cast myself in the role of
Microsoft's defender, but on the other hand I can't let a statement like
that go unchallenged. I have a tremendous amount of respect for VS.NET and
it's been a long time since I could say that about a Microsoft development
system! The fact that it is a strange and alien environment to die-hard
Borland developers does not make it a dinosaur.
| Quote: | May be, perhaps, it would be better so. But this would be very painful
for me and all those, developing large VCL projects - I mean
we have very large projects, that perhaps will never end. A migration
would be very very painful...
|
As has been said in other threads, Win32 will be with us for the forseeable
future. There's no point going for .NET immediately unless you have
compelling technical reasons to do so. But on the other hand, Microsoft
have made it clear that .NET will be the new de-facto API, and that Win32
will slowly be de-emphasised. Therefore, any developer who isn't planning
to retire this Christmas needs to think about dipping a toe in the water....
Dave
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EH
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
Hi Edward!
| Quote: | There are a million ways to configure the IDE as you like it. In all
honesty, the configuration options dwarf those of C++Builder and CBX.
|
How can I get the VS IDE to have my form and source code window overlay the
other windows (Property list, toolbox, all those docked windows).
How can I get one window for every form, that I can place where I want to.
IMO, this feature in Borland's IDE allowed the most effective working
with forms and source code, but that's just my opinion...
| Quote: | Yes, this is different. Initialization is actually added to code rather than
being done automagically from a resource file as in BCB. I too think the BCB
way is cleaner, but the VC++ .NET way lets you see exactly what is happening
more easily.
|
It would be better, if they would place this code into a another module.
| Quote: | OTOH, events in .NET are
multicast via delegates while in BCB via __closures they are not. BCB does
have Actions instead.
|
I never used actions for certain reasons.
Multicasting events sounds very interesting, but I still have to read more
about it: The first time I heared something about this feature, at once I
thought about order problems...
| Quote: | Yes to all your questions. The functionality and extensibility of Visual
Studio .NET 2003 is better than anything MS has ever done.
|
Took a very long time until they got it (except VB).
| Quote: | If one is honest, Visual Studio .NET 2003 is an awesome achievement in the
Windows programming area. This is why Borland has become so incredibly
disappointing in their approach to C++ programmers. MS puts out an
incredible development environment for C++ ( and C# programmers ), using
ideas now which Borland developed themselves about 7-8 years ago, while
Borland has done practically nothing in that time to improve their IDE and
development support for C++ programmers. It is doubly sad because Borland
had such a huge head start over anything MS had done via RAD development in
C++ and they have thrown it all away on bad management and refusal to
realize the importance of C++ as a programming language.
|
ACK.
| Quote: | I am truly afraid,
given this letter Open Letter fiasco and the state of CBX, that Borland's
support for C++ development will soon be history.
|
I fear, that VS .NET speeded up this process, because VS .NET now got a too
big competitor in the C++ market...
May be, concerning programming languages, Borland withdraws into non-MS-market
segments -> Pascal and JAVA, making a little bit .NET for Pascal and JAVA for
not loosing connection to the future.
So, I also think, they will let C++ die.
And what's with C#Builder? To be honest, I had no time to read much about
C#Builder. For me, only one question remained:
for what - the hell - did they bring out C#Builder? MS already offers one!
So, i think, C#Builder may be the next language...
Thanx,
EH :-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hendrik Schober
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 9:45 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
EH <Spam (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote:
| Quote: | Hello!
The CBuilder debacle drove me to examine the .NET stuff.
I bought some books, that don't give me the answers i search.
Ever time I took a short look into Visual Studio .NET, i quickly closed it:
1. This ugly IDE doesn't let me enough place to design a large form and for
editing my code. Why do i need thousands of dockable windows to the left,
right, top and bottom, for writing an application?
|
If you don't need those windows, turn them
off. (What's so new about this concept?)
If you need them, but don't want to see
them all the time, click on the auto-hide
pin.
| Quote: | [...]
VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE [...]
|
I must admit that, compared to VS.NET, all of
Borland's IDEs since BC5 seem like toys. Just
look at the project manager: You can have as
many configurations for each project as you
like ("Debug", "Release", "Profile", "Debug
Unicode", "Release Unicode", "Special Build
Customer X", "Trial Version"...), and you can
freely create dependencies between all the
projects -- and different ones for each
configuration. Try to do that with BCB!
| Quote: | [...]
EH 
|
Schobi
--
[email]SpamTrap (AT) gmx (DOT) de[/email] is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers org
"And why should I know better by now/When I'm old enough not to?"
Beth Orton
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
EH
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:17 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
Hi!
| Quote: | VS Studio is a dinosaur IDE [...]
I must admit that, compared to VS.NET, all of
Borland's IDEs since BC5 seem like toys. Just
look at the project manager: You can have as
many configurations for each project as you
like ("Debug", "Release", "Profile", "Debug
Unicode", "Release Unicode", "Special Build
Customer X", "Trial Version"...), and you can
|
Ah, ok, that's true for the adjustements you can make.
I see I must clarify something: What I mean with dinosaur IDE,
is the missing comfort in quick and comfortable form design
as it IMO is best solved in the Borland IDE.
And - BTW - the VS IDE also is very old and also got no
significant new features from MS for years (also IMO).
| Quote: | If you don't need those windows, turn them
off. (What's so new about this concept?)
If you need them, but don't want to see
them all the time, click on the auto-hide
pin.
|
When designing forms, i (mainly) need three windows:
the form beeing designed, the source code and the property-list.
And i want to move these windows where i want. Unfortunately,
this is not possible with the VS IDE since years. This is my
personal opinion concerning comfortable working.
Regards,
EH :-)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randall Parker
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 10:56 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
The bigger problem I hear about .NET is that is is slower and bigger. My
guess is that it might be buggier as well at this stage but perhaps not.
EH wrote:
| Quote: | I fear, that jumping to .NET will at least double my development time.
So i hope, that Borland will not finish their VCL and their IDE...
Thanx for comments,
EH :-)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrewGBR
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:06 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
"EH" <Spam (AT) 127 (DOT) 0.0.1> wrote
| Quote: | Hi Edward!
There are a million ways to configure the IDE as you like it. In all
honesty, the configuration options dwarf those of C++Builder and CBX.
How can I get the VS IDE to have my form and source code window overlay
the
other windows (Property list, toolbox, all those docked windows).
|
Some panels can be detached but chosing Floating in popup menu. I wish the
code designer were detacheable, because sometimes you want it to be really
big. Some panels, e.g. toolbox, I prefer making auto-hide most of the time.
| Quote: | How can I get one window for every form, that I can place where I want to.
IMO, this feature in Borland's IDE allowed the most effective working
with forms and source code, but that's just my opinion...
|
I agree, the way forms are desplayed in BCB is more convenient.
| Quote: | Yes, this is different. Initialization is actually added to code rather
than
being done automagically from a resource file as in BCB. I too think the
BCB
way is cleaner, but the VC++ .NET way lets you see exactly what is
happening
more easily.
It would be better, if they would place this code into a another module.
|
Actually, the designer-generated code is normally collapsed and you don't
see it, so you as well may think about it being in a separate module. At the
same time if you do need to look at it, and I must say when learning the
tool such desire appears frequently, all you need to do is to click and
expand the node. I wouldn't want to search yet for another module to look at
the code. I think MS did it actually right this time.
I have one silly question to all who played with VS 2003. I can't find an
equivalent of TTabControl (that is, just tabs without pages). Anybody
figured it out?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CrewGBR
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:23 pm Post subject: Re: Visual studio IDE, .NET components and other stuff - opi |
|
|
"Randall Parker" <STOPtechiepundit (AT) EVILfuturePOXpunditSPAM (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:3f99ad27$1 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com...
| Quote: | The bigger problem I hear about .NET is that is is slower and bigger. My
guess is that it might be buggier as well at this stage but perhaps not.
|
Slower? In what sense is it slower? I find all operations in IDE to be
significantly faster than in BCB. So if that is slow than what can you say
about BCB? Or maybe you meant compiler speed or executable? Compile speed is
no better than that of BCB, probably a tad slower, which I attribute to
whole lot more optimizations done in compiler. Executable is noticeably
faster than BCB, especially I found MS compiler producing significantly
faster code when the processor cache can be efficiently utilized. It looks
like BCB doesn't care about cache optimization at all. The code that
saturates memory bus runs pretty much at the same speed from BCB and VC,
which happens often with older dual (or more) Xeon processors.
As to being bigger, I don't know what you mean, a memory footprint? Frankly,
I didn't notice any difference working with either tool in this respect.
Buggier? Here you missed by a mile. VC is significantly less buggy that BCB.
It doesn't take more than 10 minutes working with BCB to stumble over some
IDE/compiler/linker bug. In this respect, working with VC.net for a year and
for a couple months with VC.net 2003 I stumbled over just one serious bug,
which I couldn't repeat later, so it could have been a system problem rather
than a VC bug.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
