Home
| Search
| C & C++
| D
| DMDScript
| News Groups
| index
| prev
| next
|
Archives
D Programming
DD.gnu digitalmars.D digitalmars.D.bugs digitalmars.D.dtl digitalmars.D.dwt digitalmars.D.announce digitalmars.D.learn digitalmars.D.debugger C/C++ Programming
c++c++.announce c++.atl c++.beta c++.chat c++.command-line c++.dos c++.dos.16-bits c++.dos.32-bits c++.idde c++.mfc c++.rtl c++.stl c++.stl.hp c++.stl.port c++.stl.sgi c++.stlsoft c++.windows c++.windows.16-bits c++.windows.32-bits c++.wxwindows digitalmars.empire digitalmars.DMDScript |
c++ - Wayfaring C++ programmer comes home
When Symantec decided to drop SC++ at version 7.5, in a manner that was quite unpleasant to the customers, I began to consider options as far as new compilers were concerned (well, new to me, anyway). I dearly loved SC++, and had invested a good portion of time and money into it, so I was not especially pleased with the idea of finding a different compiler. Nevertheless, if I wanted the newest features of C++ and wanted some support, I would have to make the switch. I started with Visual C++. What a miserable IDE! I would hardly consider it "visual" by any means, and I certainly would not consider it user friendly.The debugger was a dandy, that was cool...but, a nifty debugger does not make up for a non-standard, slow, unfriendly compiler with a bummer of an IDE. Let the search continue. Ok, next was classic Borland C++. Umm... No thanks. I like my executables to be small and quick, thank you. And, I really HATE all of those miserable warnings about everything from variables that "might not be initialized" to minor type conversion complaints. What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will create an ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot. Welcome to Nerf++. Well, at least the program CD makes a good coaster for my mug of hot cocoa? I looked very briefly at Metrowerks CodeWarrior. The potential was there, but I did not care for the poor excuses for integrated components. Watcom? Geez, another dead compiler that's just pitifully organized. Bugs, too. Wait a moment?.. I forgot about good ol' IBM! So, off we go to get VisualAge C++. Hmm, I must enjoy wasting my money -- this was a hideous experience. Not only is this a stubborn program to install, it makes huge executables and has very limited platform support. To add insult to injury, the latest patch file was 141M compressed/340M unpacked, and it removed the Win32 SDK! Did I mention that IBM is discontinuing the Windows version? *sigh* So, after checking for a possible replacement to SC++/DMC++, I made an important conclusion : one cannot replace the best of the best (JAK said it best: "The eagle flies very high -- and alone."). Even if I must sacrifice some of the latest standard features, I cannot replace SC++/DMC++, as all others are a bigger step backwards than forwards. I've come home. Jan 31 2001
Wow! What a nice message. Glad to have you back! -Walter Matt Morgan wrote in message <95a9c1$1k6f$1 digitaldaemon.com>...When Symantec decided to drop SC++ at version 7.5, in a manner that was quite unpleasant to the customers, I began to consider options as far as Jan 31 2001
Matt Morgan wrote in message <95a9c1$1k6f$1 digitaldaemon.com>...I've come home. Jan 31 2001
I have been chattering back and forth with Jan for quite a while, so I have been aware of where the discussion about the compiler has been hosted over time. I was in the original Symantec newsgroup, then the egroups thing, and how here. Just because I was looking did not mean that I turned my back! ;o) "Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:95b27f$21am$1 digitaldaemon.com...Matt Morgan wrote in message <95a9c1$1k6f$1 digitaldaemon.com>...I've come home. Feb 01 2001
I'm just a little frustrated because I submitted the URL to all the search engines last December, and it's shown up in none of them. Sigh. -Walter Matt Morgan wrote in message <95da6d$5cf$1 digitaldaemon.com>...I have been chattering back and forth with Jan for quite a while, so I have been aware of where the discussion about the compiler has been hosted over time. I was in the original Symantec newsgroup, then the egroups thing, and how here. Just because I was looking did not mean that I turned my back! Feb 01 2001
Submit it again! It used to be that "Microsoft Foundation Classes" in altavista.com gave as first website http://www.dpc-tech.com/ (friends of mine) just because their secretary submitted their site over and over again. Also, I also submitted digitalmars.com to google.com and altavista.com... Jan Walter wrote:I'm just a little frustrated because I submitted the URL to all the search engines last December, and it's shown up in none of them. Sigh. -Walter Matt Morgan wrote in message <95da6d$5cf$1 digitaldaemon.com>...I have been chattering back and forth with Jan for quite a while, so I have been aware of where the discussion about the compiler has been hosted over time. I was in the original Symantec newsgroup, then the egroups thing, and how here. Just because I was looking did not mean that I turned my back! Feb 01 2001
Hmmm, right now it is number 12 in altavista.com! They must be slowing down! Jan Jan Knepper wrote:Submit it again! It used to be that "Microsoft Foundation Classes" in altavista.com gave as first website http://www.dpc-tech.com/ (friends of mine) just because their secretary submitted their site over and over again. Also, I also submitted digitalmars.com to google.com and altavista.com... Jan Walter wrote:I'm just a little frustrated because I submitted the URL to all the search engines last December, and it's shown up in none of them. Sigh. -Walter Matt Morgan wrote in message <95da6d$5cf$1 digitaldaemon.com>...I have been chattering back and forth with Jan for quite a while, so I have been aware of where the discussion about the compiler has been hosted over time. I was in the original Symantec newsgroup, then the egroups thing, and how here. Just because I was looking did not mean that I turned my back! Feb 01 2001
----- Original Message ----- From: Matt Morgan <geckofood yahoo.com>I started with Visual C++. What a miserable IDE! I would hardly consider it "visual" by any means, and I certainly would not consider it user friendly.The debugger was a dandy, that was cool...but, a nifty debugger does not make up for a non-standard, slow, unfriendly compiler with a bummer of an IDE. Let the search continue. Feb 01 2001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Matt Morgan wrote:What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will create an ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot. Feb 01 2001
"Arjan Knepper" <arjan jak.nl> wrote in message news:3A798DBE.1F551C04 jak.nl...Matt Morgan wrote:What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will Feb 01 2001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit The C++BUILDER IDE automagically adds the project source file path(s) to the compiler include path. And your not able to control the hierarchy. Walter wrote:What's the include path misery? -Walter Feb 01 2001
The whole concept of using environment variables to get the include & lib path is a botch, which becomes painfully obvious when you have to deal with multiple compilers (and even multiple versions of those compilers!). This is why I came up with the sc.ini scheme, where the compiler looks for its "environment" from that file, which resides in the directory where it found sc.exe. My goal is to provide a compiler system that does not use environment variable settings or system registry settings. Environment variables are very useful, however, in transmitting long command lines to child processes. Sadly, no other vendor ever adopted that technique (which is used in all the digital mars command line driven utilities). "Arjan Knepper" <arjan jak.nl> wrote in message news:3A79AC5D.1ED9913A jak.nl...The C++BUILDER IDE automagically adds the project source file path(s) to Feb 01 2001
Walter wrote:What's the include path misery? -Walter Feb 01 2001
Hi Matt! Very well put is my reaction! I think averyone around here knows that I tend to keep all kinds and brands of C++ compilers around. I certainly share the misery one has to go through with any of the mentioned compilers. Where VC-- quits with an INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR. BC++B might come with a better compiler than VC--, but their IDE is about the worst I have ever seen. CodeWarrior is pain in the neck as well. Their IDE stinks (about as bad as Borland's). Than they have about 10 characters to pass -D #defines to the compiler... So far I really prefer the light weight of the Digital Mars C++ IDDE and the lightning fast compile speed. I mean... try to sort the nodes (or files) in a VC-- project or BC++B project on type... .cpp/.hpp/.rc??? Has any one every tried a project in BC++B with more than 25 .cpp files? Because only after that many the real fun begins... Anyways, Matt, I am delighted to hear that after your exploration you found that the Digital Mars C++ compiler isn't so bad eventhough it might be a little behind. Let's keep it up! Jan Matt Morgan wrote:When Symantec decided to drop SC++ at version 7.5, in a manner that was quite unpleasant to the customers, I began to consider options as far as new compilers were concerned (well, new to me, anyway). I dearly loved SC++, and had invested a good portion of time and money into it, so I was not especially pleased with the idea of finding a different compiler. Nevertheless, if I wanted the newest features of C++ and wanted some support, I would have to make the switch. I started with Visual C++. What a miserable IDE! I would hardly consider it "visual" by any means, and I certainly would not consider it user friendly.The debugger was a dandy, that was cool...but, a nifty debugger does not make up for a non-standard, slow, unfriendly compiler with a bummer of an IDE. Let the search continue. Ok, next was classic Borland C++. Umm... No thanks. I like my executables to be small and quick, thank you. And, I really HATE all of those miserable warnings about everything from variables that "might not be initialized" to minor type conversion complaints. What about Borland C++ Builder? Cool interface to Windows programming -- very nice if I want to slap together a cheap application that will create an ENORMOUS executable that runs slower than frozen snail snot. Welcome to Nerf++. Well, at least the program CD makes a good coaster for my mug of hot cocoa? I looked very briefly at Metrowerks CodeWarrior. The potential was there, but I did not care for the poor excuses for integrated components. Watcom? Geez, another dead compiler that's just pitifully organized. Bugs, too. Wait a moment?.. I forgot about good ol' IBM! So, off we go to get VisualAge C++. Hmm, I must enjoy wasting my money -- this was a hideous experience. Not only is this a stubborn program to install, it makes huge executables and has very limited platform support. To add insult to injury, the latest patch file was 141M compressed/340M unpacked, and it removed the Win32 SDK! Did I mention that IBM is discontinuing the Windows version? *sigh* So, after checking for a possible replacement to SC++/DMC++, I made an important conclusion : one cannot replace the best of the best (JAK said it best: "The eagle flies very high -- and alone."). Even if I must sacrifice some of the latest standard features, I cannot replace SC++/DMC++, as all others are a bigger step backwards than forwards. I've come home. Feb 01 2001
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jan Knepper wrote:tried a project in BC++B with more than 25 .cpp files? Because only after that many the real fun begins... Feb 01 2001
Arjan Knepper wrote:Yep 149 cpp files in one project (ORS), no problems in SC++/DMC++ IDDE, a hard thing to manage in BC++B never tried it in VC. Feb 01 2001
|