944,092 Members | Top Members by Rank

Software Development > C++ > difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Ad:
  • C++ Discussion Thread
  • Marked Solved
  • Views: 2576
  • C++ RSS
You are currently viewing page 1 of this multi-page discussion thread
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
0

difference between Borland c++ and Visual C

Expand Post »
hi friends,
From many days I wanted to create some application in Windows.
Now which IDE would be better (I am also a bit confused with the term IDE )
Turbo c or Borland C++ bulder or Visual c
Whatz the difference between these things??
Please someone clear my confusion.
Also I dont think learning the C which we studied in our colllege would be enough for this !!
Also please help me to learn this...
Similar Threads
Reputation Points: 8
Solved Threads: 2
Junior Poster in Training
alvalany is offline Offline
61 posts
since Jul 2009
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
0
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Don't use Turbo C, I would go for Microsoft Visual C++.
Tutorial to get you started on windows programming. [link]
Reputation Points: 1429
Solved Threads: 129
Posting Virtuoso
William Hemsworth is offline Offline
1,542 posts
since Mar 2008
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
-1
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Quote ...
Don't use Turbo C
Why not?
Reputation Points: 1446
Solved Threads: 135
Practically a Master Poster
Tom Gunn is offline Offline
681 posts
since Jun 2009
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
-1
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Quote ...
Why not?
It's ancient and there's just so many reasons to use an up-to-date compiler, can't be bothered listing them.
Reputation Points: 1429
Solved Threads: 129
Posting Virtuoso
William Hemsworth is offline Offline
1,542 posts
since Mar 2008
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
0
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by Tom Gunn ...
Why not?
For several obvious reasons Tom Gunn :

1)Because it is sub standard.
2)Uses all the extinct headers and commands.
3)It is not according to the c99 standards.
4)void main is valid in it.
5)The blue screen irritates a lot...
And loads other stuff.........
Reputation Points: 485
Solved Threads: 88
Posting Pro
csurfer is offline Offline
564 posts
since Jan 2009
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
0
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Quote ...
It's ancient and there's just so many reasons to use an up-to-date compiler, can't be bothered listing them.
Quote ...
For several obvious reasons Tom Gunn :

1)Because it is sub standard.
2)Uses all the extinct headers and commands.
3)It is not according to the c99 standards.
4)void main is valid in it.
5)The blue screen irritates a lot...
And loads other stuff.........
That is what I thought you were going to say. Please check your facts before turning people off to a good compiler. Turbo C++ has an up-to-date version from around 2006. As far as I know, it conforms to the standard. If you are going to bash Turbo C++, at least make it clear what version you are attacking and why.
Reputation Points: 1446
Solved Threads: 135
Practically a Master Poster
Tom Gunn is offline Offline
681 posts
since Jun 2009
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
0
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Quote ...
That is what I thought you were going to say. Please check your facts before turning people off to a good compiler. Turbo C++ has an up-to-date version from around 2006. As far as I know, it conforms to the standard. If you are going to bash Turbo C++, at least make it clear what version you are attacking and why.
Most of the people who use Turbo C/C++ do so because they want to make use of old headers like graphics.h. and FYI I wasn't bashing, he asked which one he should use and even if Turbo C++ is now compliant to the standard, I would still have said MSVC++ for reasons such as the debugger.
Reputation Points: 1429
Solved Threads: 129
Posting Virtuoso
William Hemsworth is offline Offline
1,542 posts
since Mar 2008
Permalink
Oct 15th, 2009
0
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by William Hemsworth ...
Don't use Turbo C, I would go for Microsoft Visual C++.
Tutorial to get you started on windows programming. [link]
What about borland c++ builder?
Actually I wanted to choose the best one for wndows appl dev.
Reputation Points: 8
Solved Threads: 2
Junior Poster in Training
alvalany is offline Offline
61 posts
since Jul 2009
Permalink
Oct 21st, 2009
0
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by Tom Gunn ...
Turbo C++ has an up-to-date version from around 2006. As far as I know, it conforms to the standard.
Yes it is. But it is also called C++Builder, not Turbo C++. William was advising against the use of Turbo C++, not C++ Builder and they are not the same thing. Windows 3.1 != Windows 7

Click to Expand / Collapse  Quote originally posted by itzAB ...
What about borland c++ builder?
Actually I wanted to choose the best one for wndows appl dev.
Visual Studio Expresss is my personal favourite. I like the debugger a lot and although some people say that the UI is a but cluttered, I'm quite fond of it. You can download it by clicking the link. (choose the C++ version )
Last edited by Nick Evan; Oct 21st, 2009 at 11:55 am.
Moderator
Featured Poster
Reputation Points: 4142
Solved Threads: 394
Industrious Poster
Nick Evan is offline Offline
4,132 posts
since Oct 2006
Permalink
Oct 21st, 2009
1
Re: difference between Borland c++ and Visual C
Quote ...
Yes it is. But it is also called C++Builder, not Turbo C++.
No, I was wrong. Turbo C++ 2006, also called Turbo C++ Explorer, is not available anymore. It looks like the only free option now is a trial version of C++ Builder.

Quote ...
William was advising against the use of Turbo C++, not C++ Builder and they are not the same thing.
I know what William was advising against, but for the last few years Turbo C++ had been resurrected as Turbo C++ Explorer, with the 2006 version of Borland's compiler. I saw it the same as condemning VS2008 based on the problems of VS6, so I was making sure that everyone knew a more recent version of Turbo C++ was available. But I was wrong and that version is not available anymore, so it is safe to assume any mention of Turbo C++ means the ancient versions.

I apologize for giving outdated information. It was accurate when I checked a few months ago, and I made an unwarranted assumption that it was still accurate.
Last edited by Tom Gunn; Oct 21st, 2009 at 12:09 pm.
Reputation Points: 1446
Solved Threads: 135
Practically a Master Poster
Tom Gunn is offline Offline
681 posts
since Jun 2009

This thread is solved

Either the thread starter or a moderator has marked this thread as solved. You can most likely trust the responses and answers given. There is most likely no reason for any further responses to be posted here. If you have a related question, please start a new thread in this forum instead.

This thread is more than three months old

No one has posted to this discussion for at least three months. Please let old threads die and do not reply to them unless you feel you have something new and valuable to contribute that absolutely must be added to make the discussion complete. Otherwise, please start a new thread in this forum instead.
Message:
Previous Thread in C++ Forum Timeline: Help with some errors in some C++
Next Thread in C++ Forum Timeline: reverse num help...





About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Acceptable Use Policy
Forum Index | Build Custom RSS Feed


Follow us on Twitter


© 2011 DaniWeb® LLC