Slashdot Mirror
Borland C++ Now Free-as-in-Beer
BlueBlade writes, "Inprise, formerly known as Borland (and now merging with Corel) has released their latest compiler for free. They said the move was to show support for the open source community. You can find the full article here. " It's Free Beer though. No source code, although such a release would really show their support for the Open Source Community.
Damn it. I loved Borland, why did they have to change to Inprise? :(
You can't handle the truth.
Its Free Beer tho. No source code, although such a release would really show their support for the Open Source Community.
Ever heard of being thankful for what you get? Borland makes quality stuff, and its great to see this come out. But, CmdrTaco, your comment sounds (at least to me) resentful. Lighten up a bit, ok?
--------------------------
I was wondering if there is a beer which has all ingredients and brewing process details available publicly.
I would rather pay for their compiler and get the source with it, than download it for nothing.
Read what they don't want you to.
With GCC you get a lot more optimizations and a lot more active development of the product. With Borland 5.5 you only have Corel/Inprise developing it. Borland claims their 5.5 compiles code faster than GCC and their product does have precompiled headers. If 5.5 does compile code faster then it might but used to develop code, but GCC will be used to compile released code.
Wish I have the Source Code? This one actually matters.
But than again, I don't think every program has to be GPLed, or freed. It seems that lately, the underdog software companies tend to make thier software free. Good for them.
Quite Frankly, IMHO, 90% of /. doesn't give a shit between free "beer" vs free "speech" so long as they don't have to pay $$ for it.
In an interview, Fuller Inprise CEO said they intend to Open Source Inerbase (already done under MPL) and also their compilers, but tey are not sure about VCL.
Can't find the link for the interview, but it was last Week in a major Linux magazine.
Alright, I know I'm probably going to get moderated down for this one, but here goes... Why is it that whenever a company releases a powerful and useful tool for free, the first response of many here is to say "Great, now give us the source and we will like you!" I'm not trying to rant or make any personal griping here, but to me it is in very bad form to expect so much of a company when they are still in a transition toward the entire concept of Open Source Software. I do not believe that Any Company, when approached with the concept of releasing their tools for free, looks upon the idea without a jaundiced eye at first, and I belive that it is only after weighing their options and realizing the goal that they make an action like the one Inprise made today. It is a big deal to them, and they are being good sports and catering to our community with something like this... so why must we grab their outstreched hand and tug them toward us with all our might? Ah well... it just seems rude to me. Moderate away.
Know ye not that ye are Gods???
So how exactly is Inprise supporting the community? Last time I checked, giving a peice of software away for free didn't make it "free" in the GNU sense. I suppose that according to Inprise, Internet Explorer supports the open source community too, eh?
I'll stick with GCC.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
...since I don't have (or need) Windows on my system
Thanks
With GCC you get a lot more optimizations and a lot more active development of the product. With Borland 5.5 you only have Corel/Inprise developing it. Borland claims their 5.5 compiles code faster than GCC and their product does have precompiled headers. If 5.5 does compile code faster then it might but used to develop code, but GCC will be used to compile released code.
Thank you Borland. You didn't have to release it and those of us in the development community appreciate your thoughtfulness. I may choose to use an alternative product but I thank you nonetheless.
check out the 4 easy steps you have to go through in order to get it....
Now, they're releasing the binaries for zero cost. It's a start, but not really a very helpful one. Yes, they seem to have learned that "Free Software" is a strength, not a weakness, but they seem to be confusing free with "free beer", not "free speech".
IMHO, this is a regrettable confusion. A blunder. Nothing to flame them over, but rather something to gently correct them for. Borland has some great brains, and if they can be tapped to their full potential, both Borland AND the Free Software community will gain.
However, zero-pricing their binaries doesn't really benefit anyone. It takes commercial companies away from genuinely Free Software, thus dividing the potential for growth, rather than multiplying it.
Still, there IS the possibility that this is but one move in a steady transition to genuine Free Software, be it BSD-ish, GPL-ish, etc. It might be best to wait a little and see.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Also, what's with the "Crackers and Hackers" thing on the community.borland.com front page?
--
The shareholder is always right.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a port at some point, though given that it's owned by Corel.
-- The Sheep --
Microsoft's compiler is the least ANSI compliant compiler I know and I can barely use the STL with it. Could I use the Borland compiler as a drop in replacement? For example I need to write DLL's to be loaded up by code compiled with Visual C/C++ and that need to link against libraries compiled with Visual C/C++. Is there any chance that I could use Borland's compiler to do this?
I've never understood how developers manage under Windows when Microsoft's compiler doesn't actually compile C++
-- SIGFPE
Glory, if shared, grows, not dimnishes.
The slashdot effect sucks. I want mirrors! :-)
MOO
Really? How'd you pull that one off, the press release was only dated 4 days ago... Unless your definition of a week is drastically different from mine... we have some sort of miscommunication going on here. As an aside, but semi relevant.. is this merely an occurence of the newest fad? It seems we get fewer and fewer 'First post$!#@%#@@#%' posts, and more and more of 'Hrm, what can I bitch about posts, slashdot sucks since the Andover/VA merger, I'll just invent some bullshit to make them look bad.' Come on people, give it up. I for one don't care that you're offended that moneys being made off slashdot, and making up pure unmitigated bullshit lies to try to convince yourself and others that the show really is being run differently now is just pathetic. As far as I can tell, it's the same kind of people who _only_ like(d) linux while it was 'cool' and 'elitist' and 'underground'. That in and of itself is fine.. doesn't hurt anyone, but this has got to stop.. I'm really getting bored of these 'slashdot sucks' trolls, as thinly veiled behind lies as they may be. Bugger off, we don't need your kind here.
Posted by TunaTaco on Sunday February 20, @12:29PM
from the laid-back dept
CollegeDude writes: "Dudes, if you give Natalie Portman 5 beers, she'll be so fucking drunk off her ass you can fuck her 9-ways til Sunday! PARTY!!!!!!" Wow. This is great news. If we give chicks FREE beer, they might get drunk and let us touch their asses. Sweet! What do the rest of you think about this?
Man....
Everybody on slashdot is going to hell.
I mean seriously, all I here is bitching.
[begin mocking in a whiny voice]
Why don't they release the source??
How is this helping the community??
Their web page uses javascript.
It'll never be as good as gcc.
It's too difficult to download.
[end mocking in a whiny voice]
Good lord... doesn't anybody ever have anything good to say? Borland makes the best compilers out there hands down, and now they are releasing the c++ compler for FREE! and all I here is bitching.
Didn't your parents ever tell you if you don't have anything good to say, then don't say anything?
Sheeshh.... just be thankful for what you have and get on with your life and stop criticizing people at every turn.
just my $.02,
later
Off course, this doesn't mean that one should hate Borland / Inprise / whatever any more or less than other non-free software companies, just that Borland has not given away something of great commercial value. Personally, I think it is just another attempt to resurrect a dead product using the market hoopla associated with Open Source. However, unlike Netscape, Borland is not doing this by actually making their product free software, but rather by diffusely associating themselves with Open Source. If BCC achieves any sort of popularity, there will be a for-charge, non-free "professional" edition out fairly quickly.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, even if I risk being flamed to death, let's face it guys - this story appeared on Borland site 2 days ago. It must be that today is a very boring Sunday.
I even tried to download it and I was really sorry to find that it was a binary compiled for Windows. So, those of you that are expecting to see those beautiful tools on the web, well, your time hasn't come yet.
The download process is somewhat time-consuming (especially that damn survey), but this is not something new. They've been doing it for a long time and I say that it's not that painful every once in a while. Wait and see how long it takes to download the JBuilder !
Anyways - where is the Linux compiler I'm expecting ? As long as I don't see CBuilder on my desktop I will be a very unsatisfied customer of Borland.
So, if someone knows a way to make things move faster, please push all the buttons (tm to whoever owns it) and do it.
Another thing : could you at least have mentioned the Klyrix project ? I think it's far more interesting than the compiler story.
Good work Borland! It will definetly help cross-platform development, such as Mozilla.
;)
It's sad to say but gcc doesn't cut it yet on Windows. IMHO, I wish that RedHat/Cygnus would direct their forces to concentrate on UNIX instead now.
And you others, stop harassing the Borland site, I can't get through at the moment.
We want to make sure we get a free assembler that works with Borland and Linux.
My school's current computer programming course is based on an outdated version of TC++ for Win16. One of the most irritating problems with it is that it's a Win16 development environment which multitasks co-operatively. i.e. Whenever you get stuck in an infinite loop of any kind, you press the big reset button and hope that the Novell server knows you logged off. Otherwise you turn it off, wait five minutes, turn it back on, and hope it works. Repeat until it does. I was trying to convince them to migrate to djgpp a couple of days ago and this happens... :)
Before everyone gets excited about this "free" compiler, allow me to point out to everyone that it is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS. Want to know why? Because it doesn't include a debugger, that's why. Yep, that's right -- no debugger. None at all. NO WAY to DEBUG anything.
Complain to the VP of Developer Relations at Borland about this. His e-mail is davidi@inprise.com.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You will probably be able to use the compiler. I never tried it but I don't see too many problems with this.
What I would wonder is if you could also use the linker (which is very different). Anyways, what's the worst that could happen ? Reinstall the package ?
Besides, I recommend you 5.x versions because they are more up-to-date (4.5 doesn't know bool as type and I'm not sure it recognizes namespaces).
They may not release the VCL under GPL but it is already Open Source if you buy the Profession/Enterprise versions of their software.
LRJ
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Don't switch your school over to the free C++ 5.5. It doesn't include a debugger and is therefore worthless for learning programming.
So Borland releases a free C++ compiler. Wehee... How exactly does this help anyone? I mean, we already have a free C/C++ compiler (gcc), and that one has source and everything, which Borland's does not.
I don't see this helping anyone, except perhaps the PR staff at Borland.
Bjarke Roune
As someone who reads slashdot so they won't look like an idiot next time they meet the other programmers, I agree with the "free speech/sheep" aspect. However, I'm currently stuck with MSVC++ (have to, Boss thinks windows is "the thing to use") and dammit I am drooling at the prospect of another compiler.
I'm hoping the collage kids start handing in their programming assignments using Borland's C++ that way they don't get tied into this damn MS crap.
Like most M$ products, MSVC++ is not the BEST compiler, it is just the most widely used (mainly because it always has the latest version of the MFC included with it).
LRJ
Yup, Borland C++ is MUCH faster than g++. I've often heard, though, that it produces slightly slower code.
All of this is really academic, though, because g++ on Win32 is, well, not particularly useful for real development. Its support for the win32 API is very, very much a work in progress. It compiles as fast as mud, and it's really meant to me used within the cygwin environment.
On Unix/Linux, I rarely use anything else. But on Windows, I'll use Borland from here on out.
--JRZ
Using the "Free Beer" analogy without explanation is bad as it is confusing to new users.
I think most people know what "gratis" and "libre" mean, those words would be much more descriptive.
why when Borland releases BC++ free (as in beer), that's a great step towards Open Source... and when Microsoft makes IE available for free (still as in beer), they're against Open Source.
...)
I'd say so far that it doesn't do any good to OSS. Except eventy\ually draw some people away from real OSS IDE (like kdevelop,
Opus: the Swiss army knife of audio codec
All right... who is the fucking lame-ass who decided on these st00pid fortunes? Most of them suck ass!
This is very good. gcc is a great tool, but for various reaons it has generally been a poor choice for the Windows environment. I don't want to argue this point;as a user of both Linux and Windows, I've found it to be true.
What's most interesting about this announcement is that it underscores how little a compiler means to software development these days. Yes, obviously you need a compiler to produce executable code. But a bare compiler has no value to many people unless it comes with a RAD environment or generally does something above and beyond generating code.
I think ./ needs to add a new moderation level call either gripe(-5) or whine(-5)
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Borland does know what open software is.
They are licensing Interbase 6 under the Mozilla 1.1 license.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I'd just like to state that the person who pointed out how Inprise/Borland has taken great pains to portray themselves as the benefactors of the "Open Source" community had a VERY good point. What is going on here is essentially the cheapening of what free software stands for. It used to be that people would use the term "free software"-- but that is all about freedom, which conjures up all sorts of unpleasant (at least, to Corporate America's eyes) imagery of scruffy revolutionaries sitting in smoky bars sipping cognac, and so the term "open source" was adopted by ESR, thereby dissociating the code from any immediately obvious social issues and turning it purely into a technical or economic issue. Alright, but then what? Then, all the companies that released even the slightest bit of information, or the smallest of binaries, started flinging about the word "Open"; now, here comes Borland (or whoever the hell owns them now) trying to paint themselves as being in the same boat as the "Open Source" community, while meanwhile all it is doing is giving away (after a mandatory registration AND a survey, I might add) a very much closed-source compiler, for Windows only (!!!), with no debugger?!
I fear that the logical continuation of this pattern is as follows-- since Borland has just established that by giving away free-beer-free goodies (not even necessarily whole software packages-- arguably, a development package is not complete without a debugger!) somehow puts one in the same boat as the Open Source/free software crowd, the next steps involve doing the same for (in order):
* Crippleware/nagware/software that times out after X days-- "But see, it's helping them until it expires! They can use it to create Open Source applications for 30 days!"
* Inexpensive software ("But see, it's cheap.. we're not greedy, so we're helping the Open Source community!")
And, eventually, anyone selling their piece of software for a few bucks less than their competitors will attempt to brand themselves as being pillars of the Open Source community...
But again, that's just my 2c.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I hate seeing 'free' utilities for windows... if anything this is a bad thing because it encourages the use and development for a proprietary OS, namely Windows. I mean the whole point is we should attract developers to Linux, not give them more incentive to develop for the OS Titanic. And I agree with the previous comments, just giving the binary's away is quite ineffective. At least if they released the source we might be able to gain some useful tid-bits on compiler design that could be integrated into Linux/BSD/Unix. Oh well.
Blender And Linux Fan
You're numbing slashdot users with your humor, we might forget what real humor is like and why it's really funny.
Go away and stop posting please?
You sound more like a crackhead than a beer drinker.
MSVC++ does _not_ support the C++ standard completely
Interesting that, with all the back and forths about lightening up on borland, etc thats gon on, I didnt see anythign about this:
Free COmpiler, eh?
Bullshit. You have to barter away information in their informal lil survey. I am reminded of an old Iron Maiden song with a movie clip at the begining:[paraphrased mind you as i dont have the tape around]
(" What do you want? We want.. Information! Who is number One? I am Number Two. You are the new number three. I AM NOT A NUMBER! I AM A FREE MAN! ")
So, go ahead, sell your soul for a few bits and bytes (heck, i did), but keep in mind - are you willing to trade away your freedom? are you willing to divulge all the information you have to them?
Also, what is this?
System Requirements
Microsoft Windows 2000, Windows 95, 98 or NT4.0 with Service Pack 3 or later
Looks like this doesn't matter to the open source (Linux, Free/Open/NetBSD, etc) community...
............ no.
Ok, I'm feeling a bit in the dark here about debuggers. I've never done anything useful with a debugger. I've tried playing around with gdb a bit, but haven't gotten anything useful from it. Yet, people here seem to see a debugger as an essential tool. Can somebody help me with this? What do you use a debugger for? (other that just "debugging"... duh)
-PS
"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke
This news isn't interesting for normal slashdos readers. This download is for windows users only and it's only the command line compiler tools with very little documentation and a few examples.
Actually, I think this release is for people who already has an (earlier) version of Borland C++ Builder. With this update, they can get the newest version of the c++ compiler without upgrading their C Builder Suite. It's like and free update, faster compiling (or whatever is better with version 5.5) without spending money on a newer product.
People without the BDE can of course also use this to compile programs and such, but except for the speed of the compiler and the size of the download (only 5-7 megabytes), you won't get anything DJGPP or any of the other c/c++ compilers for windows/dos has.
Try writing quality code; use plenty of assertions, and you will rarely need a debugger. A debugger is a crutch for pedestrian programmers. 'Nuff said.
I don't understand that. Why would you want to bypass their signup, when that information is probably a big influence on whether or not Borland (er, Inprise) will continue to support the open-source community? It's a huge step for them to even make BCPPB freely downloadable, and trying to beat their system surely won't gain their support.
----
I'm not stoned, I just chugged a pack of fUN dIP!
Look at this poll from Deja news. Looks like I'm not the only one prefering Borland over anything else :)
The source to the VCL ships with every copy of Delphi and C++ Builder, so it is somewhat "Open Source". I've fixed a few bugs (and submitted the bug reports with the fixes) and there are Web sites that tell you how to fix other bugs.
It would be great if they opened the source to their compilers, but what else do they make that they could make money from? Or should they switch Business models to something like Red Hat where they are just a distributor now?
Visit the Arcade Restoration Workshop @ http://www.arcaderestoration.com
Geez buddy, calm down. I wasn't making a personal affont, and I hadn't even read YOUR comment before typing mine. Furthermore, you seemed to have a more level head when you made your comment - desiring open source but not demanding it. That is fine - my gripe (and it wasn't even that) was with the way things like this seem to be handled by SOME PEOPLE in our community. All I was trying to do was empathize with the well-meaning comapnies which these days want to get their products out to our market but are still a little unsure of the concept of open sourcing. Sure, they could turn around and throw a fee on it suddenly or nag it or something to that extent, but I like to give the benefit of the doubt. *shrug* Ah well. Shame on me. :)
Know ye not that ye are Gods???
While we're griping, let me tell you about something that I'M sick of: whining about how sure you are you'll get moderated down, as a cheap shot at evoking the sympathy of the moderators.
From now on, whenever I'm a moderator, I'll specifically look for people who think they can buy a few karma points by making themselves look like martyrs for their opinions and I will moderate them down, like they supposedly expect to be anyway.
If you have an insightful comment to make, the least you can do is let it get moderated up by virtue of its thoughtfulness, without having to resort to begging.
How much fucking memory and disk space does it take to do compiles of even tiny programs, to say nothig of compiling huge projects like Mozilla. Sorry, I don't have a quarter or half gig of RAM to spare. Borland made its rep by being tiny and fast. Heck, I still use Borland 4.5 soemtimes.
Jesus... you are one hell of paranoid mongloid.
somebody made this comment earlier
---begin snip---
The only quote containing "Open Source" in the press release is as follows:
With Open Source development exploding on all platforms, developers can now rely on a leading commercial ANSI C++ compiler to be available for any Windows based Open Source project.
It is saying that now Open Source developers on Windows will have a free compiler to work with (presumably Open Source developers don't have or don't want to spend money on a compiler). Sounds fair enough to me. They never say that their compiler is Open Source.
They don't put Open Source in the headline. They just explain that Open Source is one of their reasons for releasing the compiler for free
--end snip---
I find Microsoft's compiler to not be as fast as BCB but to be much more robust. Also VC++ lets you "edit-and-continue", something I have yet to see any other IDE/Compiler/Debugger support. And BCB also comes with MFC, and so does the Windows Platform SDK, so I hardly see how that's relevant.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
At least until a Linux version comes out, or if you want to do some cross-platform development work:
:)
The installer worked under Wine, and the compiler works too. When it calls the linker, it stalls on me, but I'll try invoking it separately.
The header files are a little bit different, but I could figure out most of it. Looks like the Windows way to do it is to steal whatever headers you need for compatibility and stick them in whatever file you're working on. I couldn't find gettimeofday, and timeval was defined in a couple of places (like winsock.h).
Of course, you could always use VMWare. And Borland also released their old C and Pascal compilers and IDEs a while back, if you need that. (I might try out the C compiler in this case.
---
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You aren't missing anything here. In fact, just to let them know how the world feels about their "tools" (appropriate, no?), don't download it. Prove that they can't move that crap out the door even if it's "free."
goddamned fscking borland compiler...ugh!
--TM, having unpleasant flashbacks
I just moderated him down for the same reasons that you mentionned.
...but can anyone recommend a good, free DOS C++ compiler? A debugger would be nice but is not necessary. The thing is, I like to do my programming work on my loyal 486 DOS machine (one of these days I'll buy another harddrive and make it a dual-booting box), and I've had a lot of trouble finding a C++ compiler. And I don't care if the source is available or not.
-Ravagin
"Ladies and gentlemen, this is NPR! And that means....it's time for a drum solo!"
Karma: T-rexcellent.
Ho shit, it was not aware that posting would undo all my moderation :-)
And direly so. How can the Linux folks talk about "open computing" when users are locked into one compiler?
Well, how about because when I try to do the right
thing, and fill out three PAGES of marketing
survey crap, they thank me with:
> Too many users
and no alternative but to "cheat"?
Slashdotters, you're wasting your time with the
survey--cheat.
Earl Higgins
Is this an end-of-life "make it free and abandon it" move? That's becoming common. Sun did that with their Java Workstation product (their rather lame attempt at an IDE for Java). It's a reasonable move, but not worth publicizing.
I know visual C++ comes with a command line make thing, and I think borland does to. But are they putting out just the compiler, or the whole dev invironment.
[ c h a d o k e r e ]
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Can anyone explain to me the difference between e.g. Borland C++ 5.02 and C++Builder?
If there is hope, it lies in the trolls.
I wish computers came bundled with progamming tools knowadays - DJGPP is free - BCC is free - there are lots of free graphics libraries, networking libraries etc, how come manufacturers dont bundle a programming language with their Dell Inspirons? (et al). I guess it's because warez are all over the internet now - less people are forced to write their own games for entertainment.
Ben Nolan
:wq
I don't even know why I'm responding to this whine, but here goes... I only put that as a kind of disclaimer to the fact that I was going to say something that I knew a large portion of Slashdot would disagree with. It wasn't meant as a "martyrdom" or anything.
Ma gavte la nata. (Pull out the cork)
Know ye not that ye are Gods???
I've never before seen such a bunch of whiners!
What the hell is wrong with you people? Someone offers you something for free (as in free) and you bitch, whine, and flame about it?
I hope that you never get another free (as in free) product again. Damn babies.
Now, I suppose they just came to the inevitable conclusion: Borland C++ is dead. It died when they tried competing against MFC with OWL. If you want to compete against a monopoly, you need something that's clearly superior, not a set of "objects" where the only difference is that you change all "C...s" to "T...s". OWL died slowly and painfully, and Borland died with it. Delphi was no use, you can't resurrect Turbo Pascal, not after version 4.0, when every hacker started using MSC.
Now, please, could you tell me WHERE can I get this *FREE BEER* everyone is talking about???
Moderators, take note:
1)Read the moderation guidelines before moderating anything
I bet they can't release the compiler because of IP issues within the compiler. That seems to be the number one reason of legacy software not being able to be released to public.
Malda: Not everyone has to go opensource. I think you need a little action with the clue-by-four.
-- dieman - Scott Dier
"insightful" ?
Please, you moderators, can you at least read the article first before moderating?
Could you also please not moderate if you have no knowledge of the subject matter, that might help. The BC++ compiler has always been a Windows product - the Linux version of their compiler has been announced separately.
.my 2p
Dont just make statements, PROVE IT. I can PROVE that gcc isn't fully C++ compliant. You cannot prove the same for MSVC++.
Sheesh....I guess you havn't thought about what this does to Borland.
How many of you would buy that product?
Now, you can get it for free
You have to "sign up" for it...
Then they send you e-mails trying to get you to buy the rest of their crap.
I did notice a link to "move up to C++ Builder or something.
Everyone remember that X10 promotion??? (its been a limited time offer for like 2 years now btw.)
Sure I love my $6 x-10 kit, i would have never gotten one except at that cheap price.
If i would have never gotten one...I would never want to buy any of their other products.
Borland is giving it away to get free advertising, and introduce more people to their products.
Plain and Simple.
If they would provide the source code, it would be a little different...maybe enough to not be bitching like i am now.
I used to like Maxim magazine in its early days because it was funny and amusing which made it ok for some ads and crap. Now its a pretty much a stupid magazine with a whole lot of ads and crap and very little content.
Guess what...Linux is going to go the same route (if it already hasn't) Free beer without Free Speech usually means i have to sign up for a credit card, phone card, internet service, or some other crap or watch 10 minutes of commercials for 30 of content.
Chaos, Mayhem, and Destruction: Not
And I'll also moderate all those who post comments like:
Moderators!!
Moderate this up! It's interesting....
down, since those posts are way off topic (as is this one btw).
--
Weasel
I once tried to use DJGPP. My experience is that it sucks. Completely. Oh, don't get me wrong, the debugger is fine, but it doesn't actually compile things the way it should, and you have to play around with configuration setting like mad to get it to compile at all. It doesn't terribly bother me that Borland is releasing this without a debugger. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. I'll use the DJGPP debugger, and the Borland compiler, whenever I'm doing stuff for windows. I don't see how this is supposed to help open source, nor do I see it as hurting it. I simply plan to take the free gift, return the courtesy by telling them a little bit about myself, and go happily on my way.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
YOU'RE == YOU ARE
While we are at it:
LOSE != LOOSE
"I don't like to LOSE"
"Who set the tiger LOOSE?"
Hmmm, I submitted this story on Wed., Feb. 16 and was surprised to see that it was rejected. Weird. I guess that's what can happen when a group of people go through the submissions, each with a different opinion of what's newsworthy.
Looking for political forums? Check out "The World Forum".
BWHAHAHAAHAHAH!!! > Err, have you not heard of printf()? That's how I debug... BWAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! I guess that is ok, *BWAHAHAH*, *sniff*, *BWAHAHAHA* I think this shows what level of developer you are. BWHAHAHAHAHAAHAH! Anyone, and I mean ANYONE who does not understand that a debugger is an ESSENTIAL tool in software development has simply NO IDEA what the hell he is talking about. I would go further to say that it is the PRIMARY tool of SW development. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHH! printfs as you primary debugging tool!! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAH! Sure. BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! Look, kids, I won't tell you how to 'debug' perl. And you shouldn't be talking about how to debug C/C++. printf *BWHAHAAHAHA* god that kills me.
But I would *really* appreciate having either OWL or MFC ported to UNIX and MacOS. I *hate* all these new libraries, I *don't want* to learn new libraries, what I want is to reuse my old code. I need an easy way to port all my old M$-Windoze code to Linux, ant I don't have any M$-Windoze code on Xaw, or Qt, or Gtk, or whatever.
Moderators, take note:
1)Read the moderation guidelines before moderating anything
With any beer made in Germany, you automatically know all the ingredients - water, barley, hops, yeast. Until recently, it was illegal to sell anything containing any other ingredients as beer in Germany, but now with the EU, they've been forced to abandon those laws.
Still, no German brewery would dare abandon them, and no German consumer would stoop to buying a beer not made according to them
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
Comment removed based on user account deletion
>From now on, whenever I'm a moderator, I'll specifically look for people who think they can buy a few karma points by making themselves look like martyrs for their opinions and I will moderate them down, like they supposedly expect to be anyway.
Well, you can do what you like, but this is MOST CERTAINLY against the moderator guidelines ie:
Here's some quotes, straight from: http://slashdot.org/moderation.shtml
- Concentrate more on promoting than on demoting.
- Do not promote personal agendas.
- Do not let your opinions factor in.
- Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down.
Here is how to PROPERLY moderate:
Good Comments are insightful. You read them and are better off having read them. They add new information to a discussion. They are clear, hopefully well written, or maybe amusing. These are the gems we're looking for, and they deserve to be promoted.
Average Comments might be slightly offtopic, but still might be worth reading. They might be redundant. They might be a 'Me Too' article. They might say something painfully obvious. They don't detract from the discussion, but they don't necessarily significantly add to it. They are the comments that require the most attention from the moderators, and they also represent the bulk of the comments. (Score: 0-1)
Bad Comments are flamebait. Bad comments have nothing to do with the article they are attached to. They call someone names. They ridicule someone for having a different opinion without backing it up with anything more tangible than strong words. Bad comments are repeats of something said 15 times already making it quite apparent that the writer didn't read the previous comments. They use foul language. They are hard to read or just don't make any sense. They detract from the article they are attached to.
I don't see the original poster ridiculing someone, using foul language, posting something hard to read, or senseless. It didn't detract from the article.
So why are you marking it down?
You said:
>I'M sick of: whining about how sure you are you'll get moderated down, as a cheap shot at evoking the sympathy of the moderators.
You said I == personal agenda. If you wish to discuss moderation, you should use we. If you don't feel your comments are that unanimous, then they aren't valid as far as moderation goes.
>From now on, whenever I'm a moderator, I'll specifically look for people who think they can buy a few karma points by making themselves look like martyrs for their opinions and I will moderate them down, like they supposedly expect to be anyway.
You need to concentrate more on promoting, not demoting. You need also to stop letting your personal opinions factor in. And you are marking it down because you disagree with the theme of poor moderation (which, as a small irony, is caused by you yourself). I quote: "Simply disagreeing with a comment is not a valid reason to mark it down.".
>If you have an insightful comment to make, the least you can do is let it get moderated up by virtue of its thoughtfulness, without having to resort to begging.
Yeah, but there's something missing - moderators willing to promote rather than demote. I see a lot of stuff stuck at -1 and 0 that DOESN'T BELONG THERE.
Oh, and yeah, this certainly is offtopic, but it isn't my fault this pointless discussion got started.
And why can't I reverse this? Because I long ago decied to get neither an account nor join the scourge of moderators (who much too often think they are God.).
Let's put it this way:
If you wouldn't feel comfortable saying "eat sh*t and die" to someone's face for what they have said, then you DON'T moderate that someone down.
Moderation on slashdot has WAY too much anonimity. If some idiot moderator decides to play God and ruin a perfectly good post, I CANNOT discuss with that moderator what they have done wrong, because I have no idea who did it. And worse yet, any kind of discussion provoking comments like:
- Moderation in Moderation
- Why is this moderated down?
- etc...
get the axe, because the moderators are UNWILLING to explain themselves. Instead they feel because they are weilding the power, they should use it, rather than have a rational discussion.
[sarcasm] Way to censor! [/sarcasm]
I am getting really thirsty when hearing all this nagging about free beer, but finding anyone who gives away beer is hard. Can someone make a freshmeat-like system to keep track of who gives away free beer and categorise on brands, beer-type, bottle-type and what theme and background they use on their label. If anyone knows anywhere they give out free beer, please let us know!
There are plenty of compilers out there for the x86 family. Having yet another out there for "free" is nice but hardly earth shatering. What I want to know are some recomendations on cross compilers for other uP/uC. Right now I am looking for a compiler for a motorola HC16 microcontroller.
This has bugged me a couple of time in the past too, so a more general solution would be nice.
Also, I beg of people NOT to e-mail anyone at Borland to complain about this. It is a good gesture on their part to release the compiler free, there's no need to complain that they didn't release everything free.
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
Borland used to be cool ... before Windows. Now they just suck, like Corel.
Yes, Borland (and other compilers) come with the MFC, but as I stated in the first post, you always get the most up-to-date version when you buy a M$ product - that is usually not the case when you buy somebody elses product.
LRJ
can i build gecko with this?
bye,
-jimbo
And we are thankful.
Cheers !
>With GCC you get a lot more optimizations and a
>lot more active development of the product.
What have you been sniffing?
I did some comparisions with my program compiled
with GCC and with Borland C++ 5.5
I had normal optimization with Borland and
highest optimization with GCC. I also compiled
with Visual Age for C++ with normal Optimization.
Size with GCC : 2.82M
Size with Borland : 1.18M
Size with IBM : 1.25M
The code with Borland is also slightly faster
than that of IBM and GCC code, GCC having
the slowest code and Borland the fastest.
My only complaint now that I figured out which
flags to use is that it doesn't support long long.
>With Borland 5.5 you only have Corel/Inprise
>developing it. Borland claims their 5.5 compiles
>code faster than GCC and their product does have
>precompiled headers.
All true. It is fast, it will be great to use
for Linux if it is just as good as the winblows
version. It'll be great when the C++ builder
and Delphi comes out as well.
the link to step one is broken on my box.
Probably because it requires cookies, or javascript, or something...
Borland was one of the companies that first tried to give a more free view of code. Anyone remebers their software license "like a book"? Besides they furnished a lot of source code in their packs. Frankly the only thing they kept for themselves was mostly the compiler itself.
Unfortunately Borland suffered also the fate of many of the companies of its generation - it got caught under the web of the yuppie enterpeneurs. The result of this takeover was Philip Kahn (and several other) leaving Borland. The company turned into a more "solid-proprietary" and less "venturous-dissident" face. Meanwhile, the quality of its products dropped drastically. Things ended up by customers leaving massively Borland. The company ended with a small group of C++ fans and a segment of its past Pascal clients.
It is interesting to note that among my known circles of "second-generation" Linuxists (1994-1996) I note a lot of past Borland fans (me one). For some it was a no-return ticket. For others it was a middle world between Windows and Linux. However they were only a fraction of the huge mass of "unemployed" programmers. Most Borlandists turned to other professions. Today most are either highly specialized users or sysadmins. 90% of the people didn't managed to "go Windows".
So it seems that this is the last hit on the coffin... Borland is dead. Curiously when a normal Pascal compiler has finally appeared on Linux. That follows Borland philosophy with only one exception. It's not a book, it's GPL.
Aren't there already free (as in speech) command line compilers for windows? Haven't the GNU tools been ported? What good is having this one from Borland? Is it better in some way, like producing faster code?
--
grappler
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Hah. Flaming Borland for giving us a gift is "Insightful", but putting down the flames is "flamebait".
Zealots suck.
Do they allow anyone to distribute modified or ported versions of VCL? There's a big difference between freeing the software and just publishing its source.
Borland releasing a free version of the compiler does NOT mean that the compiler is Open Source. What it means numbskulls is that if you as a customer buy an open source product that is built using C Builder, and want to compile it, you do not need to buy the compiler. IF you want to make substantial changes then no doubt you will WANT to get all the source to the VCL which is after all 90% of a builder app and you will be glad to supports Borlands efforts by buying it. Borland's language products have ALWAYS had a strong following because they ship the source to most of their libraries (instead of enmiring you in evil activex, et al), heck TP3 shipped the source code for a spreadsheet as sample code. Borland was open source long before it was fashionable. Expect the compiler for Pascal to be released in the very near future (it is the same backend), and the Linux compilers (Kylix) to follow. The advantage for Open Source developers is that you can now release your shource freely knowing that there will allways be a refference compiler that is fully ANSI compliant, works equally with Windows and Linux (We've all got our fingers crossed that this will be true) and is fast. And if nobody buys Borlands products they dissapear.
I don't use an IDE, so this is pretty damned good for me. Besides, if you want an IDE, I'm sure I recall there being an open source one available - plug that in and do as you please.
This news isn't interesting for normal slashdos readers. This download is for windows users only and it's only the command line compiler tools with very little documentation and a few examples.
I have a different slant for this article. Borland have stated they intend to release delphi to linux. And if you look at the results of the JUL99 survey, the first Q/A they asked was 1. which language ared you primarily interested in developing in on linux? Of course the answer was C/C++. So what better way to pave for delphi (and release of cpp builder?) to linux than to allow users (windows developers - their primary target) to download a free (but older) compiler to get used to.
What does perplex me is the later question, 3.The particular development tool I would most like to see for Linux is - (sic), the answer was a race between c/c++ with rad (cpp builder) and a new IDE that works with existing linux tools. Maybe thats what the Jbuilder gui was about?
Go have a look at the results of the survey to gain a better idea of where borland is heading...cpp builder on kde/gnome using native gui (or wine) that's most likely not open sourced as long as it's high quality and costing between US$100 - US$300.
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Link works just fine here. There is also a file by the same name at ftp.sunset.se - I use Go!Zilla for downloads under windows, and it finds mirrors for me. Very handy tool. I'm grabbing the file off Borlands main site right now.
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Learn how to debug with printf's, which is all you need. Anyone can do with visual debugger with point and click interface, but who said you actually learn?
Learn hard stuff, not easy, this will help in life too.
No. They can always find out the number of downloads from their FTP, and this is the only thing that matters (ie real interest).
Put your hand on your heart, and tell the whole world, did you feel in their questionare properly? Well, I highly suspect that quite a few people probably not.
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine
Once again:
Plain Old Text means that tags in the text you enter do get interpreted, because what you type is pasted as "plain old text" into the HTML that gets generated, without any automatic translation. The one thing it does is add a "<BR>" wherever you have a newline, so your paragraphs get separated. If you want special characters like "<", ">", and "&", use the escape sequences "<", ">", and "&".
Extrans is the mode that automatically escapes those special characters, displaying exactly what you type and not interpreting any tags.
Oh, and try "Preview", too.
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Internet Protocol ?
Have you just not noticed how many disastrous security and privacy exploits rely on the laughably bad security models for JavaScript code provided by today's bloated trailing-edge crippleware?
well I thought you were funny
This is (along with Delphi) Borland's (they have dropped the Inprise name in the merger with Corel) flagship product. The full C++ Builder 5.5 only came out a month or so ago, and this is the compiler for it.
I pissed in your beer.
Firstly, they aren't Inprise any more - they are dropping that name (at last!) in the merger with Corel. Infact, you could actually buy the Inprise sign on Ebay - it might still be there.
Secondly, Borland is considering open-sourceing more of its stuff. They are already releasing Interbase under the MPL (see www.interbase.com) and in a recent interview in the Linux Journal, Dale Fuller said they were considering what they shoudl open source with the release of Kylix (Delphi/C++ Builder for Linux). This MAY EVEN INCLUDE THE VCL. That woudl be really, really cool.
I saw on their website that the source in cygwin 1.0 is "released under the terms of the GPL", but I have not found a download location to get it, so I guess I must buy the CD to use it.
Can someone point out if it is available and where I can get it?
I know it is not in the GPL to require the company to put it on the net, and to only include it in the cd is fine by the terms, but usually a GPL'ed product of this size is usually available for download.
Please explain this to me, I am going out on a limb here. thank you
I'm a little annoyed that we keep using the Beer/Speech reference when it comes to freedom.
After all, I could offer a free beer recipe, and free would take the other meaning.
And I could use my freedom of speech and express my viewpoints, record it, copyright it and sell it, where no-one has the freedom to copy it.
Using "gratis" and "libre" are closer. But, unlike what RMS wants you to believe there are more than 2 dimensions involved in software freedom.
They should be explicitly used instead of using propaganda phases.
How about:
cost-freedom - I can get a legal copy without paying for it.
use-freedom - I can use it for whatever.
source-freedom - I can see the source used to create it.
modification-freedom - I modify the program for some use.
distribution-freedom - I can redistribute modified versions.
unsource-freedom (Can I hide my modified code)
Beer and Speech do not explain much.
And what are you smoking....
This is not Borland's C++Builder product. What's being offered is the the command line compiler, linker, resource compiler (which translates descriptions of a program's GUI into something executable), and some other stuff.
It appears to be enough to build software from source. It appears not to be enough to do serious software development (e.g., no debugger).
What's announced is a Windows-only compiler. (It might work with Wine, but what's the point?)
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
As the slashdot management has said many times, /. is news for geeks, not news for linux users. Believe it or not, there are geeks who use windows (like most of the ones with jobs). /. you should expect to read about more than just linux, because, *there is more to the world than linux*.
If all you want to read about is linux, well, there are other news sites around. If you come to
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
This will just Kill VC++ folks :)
I seem to disagree with most of you so here are my $0.02 on the issue.
Yes, Borland clearly wants people to buy their C++ Builder product. What's so evil about that? They're a business. They're trying to make money.
On the other hand, they have released a free compiler for Windows. Many of you imply this is useless. On the contrary, I think this is perhaps more useful than a Linux version of the compiler.
Why? Because Linux has gcc. gcc is a reasonably ANSI/ISO compliant C++ compiler. It includes a debugger, linker, etc. It's very useful. Borland C++, with no debugger, for Linux would not be particularly useful.
On the other hand, Windows has limited options for free C++ compilers. There is DJGPP, a DOS port of GNU tools. And then there's Cygwin. Cygwin is nice, but it's a large download and it's a complete set of tools. If all you want to do is compile C++ code, it's overkill. Especially since you have to distribute some large Cygwin DLLs.
Borland claims that this free compiler can support Open Source software. Most of you seem to disagree. I don't.
Imagine this scenario: someone writes open-source C++ software, using standard-compliant code and nothing operating-system specific. (It could even have a GUI, using something like GLUT or FLTK). They write this code on Linux. Compile it with gcc. Debug with gdb. Perhaps use one of the Linux IDEs.
Currently, this code would be difficult to use under Windows. You could compile with Cygwin, but this is overkill. Now, there's a new option. Compile the code with Borland's C++ compiler.
The lack of a debugger doesn't necessarily hurt this software. And this compiler does make it easier to write cross-platform, open-source software for Windows and Linux.
Go ahead and flame me. Say it's useless to write code that runs on Windows, or that it's supporting Micro$oft's evil empire. I disagree. Many people use Windows. Open-source software for these people isn't necessarily a bad thing. If they become interested enough in it, they can switch to Linux. And don't knock Borland for giving away free software without source. It's not the best thing we could have hoped for, true. But on the other hand, they are planning to develop their compiler software for Linux. Let's not change their minds by flaming them for trying to help out developers.
Matt Reece
Pity too, as it seems the d/l's completely stalled. Every once in a while I get a little burst, but at this rate, it'll take me more than a few hours to get.
Open Source? Where can I download it? Surely someone has a tarball of it somewhere.
--
I don't really care whether it's open source. I really want a compiler for windows. I'm not about to pay $1000 for visual studio, though. So I'm really happy about this. Socialists can go whine elsewhere. You want a compiler, write it. Borland is offering something. If you don't like it, fine. If it benefits some people, fine. If it conflicts with your political views, too bad. You ever hear "don't look a gift horse in the mouth"?
For the truely paranoid, though, Corel now has a way to make a proprietary Linux distribution. They still have to open the source to their mods, but it doesn't do you much good if it will only compile with Borland's proprietary compiler.
So I downloaded this compiler and installed it. No problems installing it. Then I wanted to try to compile a simple application:
bcc32 deque.cpp
bcc32 couldn't find the include directories. Went to documentation, great no documentation of the compiler switches. But anyway, I found that it was -I just as in gcc.
Hmm added them:
bcc32 -Id:\Borland\BCC55\Include deque.cpp
Couldn't find the algorithm include file. Looked in the Include directory and found algorith.h. Super, so much for ANSI C++.
Downloaded SGI STL, which should compile with BC 5.02. No luck there, but noticed that the _BORLANDC_ settings in stl_config.h must radically change, since BC5.5 better supports ANSI C++. But I got to a grinding halt when I got duplicated entries of __STD and basic_string in the stddef.h file for Borland. Duh, stddef.h shouldn't contain any C++ specific things.
If they brag so much about their ANSI C++ conformance, how is it that they can't use the official SGI STL? And why does the STL included with BC5.5 not have ANSI C++ file names.
I will give it another try, but they could at least have documented the compiler switches.
Heh heh heh... Michael Swindell... heh.. Swindle... think about it. If I can't say something intellignet about the topic, at least I can make fun of anyone who has had their name attached to it... whee!
Yeah, why do you think they have a selection on the form for if you are from slashdot or not -- they know they will never get any financial support from you, so they know to ignore your opinion...
So how about they make it a free download, and you can go buy the source. Would you actually buy the source? Pretty unlikely.
This is insightful? This is moronic.
emacs is all the IDE you need!
The only response this deserves is...
WELL DUUUUHHH!!!!
Well, if slashdot would let me post without text i would have.
Commodore Taco wrote: "It's Free Beer though. No source code, although such a release would really show their support for the Open Source Community." Hmm... this from the guy that took well over a year before he finally released the source code to the slashdot web site, much less put it under the GPL? Dork
--
Sam
Any idea how well 5.5 works? The Borland compilers have been pretty bad at times in the past. The public bug list on 5.02 was about 1,000 items, and many of the problems carried on into C++ Builder. The optimizations weren't very good, either. And 5.02 was considered the best of the bunch -- everything else after 3.1 was very likely to put a big project into the ditch.
I was developing a program under gcc a few years ago, and the boss decided that we couldn't risk using a free compiler, so he decided that the project would switch to Borland 5.02. Project was cancelled a month later after the Borland advocate who had talked the boss into it still couldn't get the standard C++ that ran fine using gcc to build at all with Borland (STL problems).
long long == __int64 or something equally lame in the microsoft world.
GEEKS RISE UP! BOYCOTT BORLANDS FOUL COMPILER!
It's a waste of time trying to explain simple, obvious things to Slashdotters. Those morons make chimpanzees look like Albert fucking Einstein. Save your breath.
There are other class libraries out there that are actually worthwhile (e.g. Borland's VCL, hint hint). There's gotta be a GTk port, too -- or, as you say, you can write your own. It's not monumentally difficult if you're willing to blow off portability, and if you're at all competent it won't take but a few weeks (I've done it), which you can amortize over the remaining lifetime of the Win32 API. For your time investment, you'll free yourself from the misery of wrestling with MFC's bizarre limitations and idiotic design flaws. A C++ library should be written (not to mention designed) by people who know C++ and OOP reasonably well. MFC wasn't. The Win32 C API was at least designed by people who knew their way around the paradigm they were working with. It's not perfect, but it's acceptable.
Now that I mention it, Win32 programming in C with just the API isn't anybody's worst nightmare. It's ugly and painful because GUI's really demand OOP, but I've done it and honestly it's not much worse than MFC.
Is there any GPL'd MFC code out there at all? I'm inclined to doubt that, unless Al Stevens uses the GPL. Stevens isn't doing anything real crucial anyway.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
The link libs are incompatible. That's what you use implib for. It generates Borland-friendly link libs from arbitrary DLL's. MSVC doesn't have an analagous utility (BTW MSVC 5 is violently unable to cope with MSVC 6 link libs if they've got a $debug section, ha ha -- found that out the hard way, installed MSVC 6, and wasted a day and a half fixing the damage to my system from the "upgrade"). 32-bit windows DLL's are goddamn PE files, they all have the same header and the same sections and blah blah blah. You're talking out your ass.
If you don't like the struct alignment, change it. Compilers can do that.
For anybody in the audience not familiar with dynamic linking in Win32: The library is called foobar.dll, and it comes with a smaller file called foobar.lib, which is what you "link" to, and which contains basically the names of the exported functions and not much else. The compiler groks all this.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
My employers will provide me with an upgrade from BC++ 4 to 5, so I wont be using the free version.
That said, I think this is a great move, but not good enough. The really powerful stuff in BC++ (and Delphi, which I prefer) is the IDE/VCL combination. Those component libraries (and the third party stuff available) blow competing software out of the water. Borland should have made their "Standard" (read Student) edition free, with IDE & VCL, rather than just the compiler. In the very least, it should be a LOT cheaper than it is.
I can't imagine going for the command line version of BC++; command lines are a long time ago for those evil coder sith-lords like myself who've gone over to the dark side. Still, it might help the students out there (those with over-sized consciences, anyway). That would be good for Borland/Inprise/Whatever they are now, because more people might get into their compilers.
Hopefully they'll give more stuff away for free. Anyone noticed that you can get older versions of BC++ & Delphi free on computer magazine CDROMs, complete with IDE and VCL?
I had a friend doing a TAFE course (technical college in Oz, below Undergraduate level) in Delphi, when Delphi 4 was out. They were teaching Delphi 2, which is no help to anyone. Why? Because they couldn't afford new versions of the compiler. Not many people took that course, because it sucked. The VB courses were full, of course, because the TAFE had the latest...
You really shouldn't charge teaching institutions for your compilers/ide/etc. The graduates convince their bosses to buy masses of the products they learnt on. Crazy.
(Hey, and who were those fools crying about how the comiler is useless sans debugger? Good coders, oh yeah...)
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS/IT/MU/O d- s: a? C++++$ UC/UL L-- E- W++ N++ w++(+) M- PS+++ PE- Y P
Like for example a member template function of a template class was totally beyond the comprehension of v5. Uh, what I mean is this: You've got a class template, and it's got a member function which is a template unto itself, with its own type parameter(s) unrelated to those of the class. GCC 2.8.1 grokked that, but MSVC 5 got upset. I don't recall what BCC did. (I spent a weekend once trying stupid template tricks with those three compilers, finding a subset that would compile on all three). Also v5 couldn't seem to cope with a member template function of a normal class unless the body was defined in the class declaration. That's tolerable, I guess, but still vaguely annoying. It's also possible that this shit is supported, but I never quite figured out how to *declare* it!
Somebody's gotta get that damned name-mangling thing sorted out. What a crock.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
You're right. I received a BS in Computer Science from Virginia Tech and worked as a successful C programmer for a couple years before getting my hands on a debugger. I didn't learn a thing. I didn't learn BASIC, C, Fortran, assembly language, Pascal, LISP, and I certainly wasn't able to write a game or ace the senior-level Assembly Language class or write a theorem prover in Lisp or write a scheduling program or database application for my summer job because I didn't have a debugger. I certainly haven't written thousands of lines of advanced Persistence of Vision raytracing scripts because there isn't a debugger. Nope. Can't be done.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
They fuck up with scope of variables declared in if, for, and while. Like so:
for ( int i = 0; ; ) {
// ANSI: i is in scope in this block, and ONLY in this block.
}
// ANSI: i out of scope, gone, forgotten, bye bye.
/* MSVC: i still in scope. MFC uses this idiotic misfeature, and they'll continue breaking the standard forever rather than fix ten instances of broken usage in obsolete code. Morons. This is all due to some vagueness on the subject in the Draft Standard about ten years ago, which the MS guys took as license to d something stupid. Stroustrup saw the problem and fixed it, but MS doesn't fix problems, they redefine them as features!
*/
Okay, now try defining class member template functions. They fucked that up in MSVC 5 and I'll betcha it's fucked up still.
It's late and I'm hungry. I'll post more tomorrow if you're actually serious about this, but here's a parting thought:
C++ is a very fucking complicated language. ALL compilers are non-compliant in one way or another. In the preface to K&R1, the lads remark that "your compiler is the final authority on the language", pursuant to the fact that even C compilers were never all identical. C is at least an order of magnitude simpler than C++. Your assertion is moronic. Obviously, you only made it to rattle some cages and demonstrate that Slashbots are loudmouthed morons who don't know what they're talking about. Okay, you proved your point, yadda yadda. Grow up already, we already knew that about Slashbots, but we're not ALL Slashbots.
And what would you do with the source code, kid ? Just watch it and try to understand it ? C'mon, I don't think you will ever be able to, so stop whining when somebody's actually doing something good !
And stupid lamers who are not aware of the Borland Inprise deal.
If you need a real C compiler, use a better product
--
Steve Ballmer for president!
~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'
~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'~,'~-,'
I guess it really depends on your needs. I agree I shouldn't have phrased it the way I did, as it's really not Open Source but for my needs it gives all the benefits of a true piece of Open Source. The company I work for creates software in a very competetive market (UNIX based Enterprise wide accounting and mfg tracking) that doesn't create Open Source applications (though the application I work on we ship souce instead of binaries, but the customer isn't allowed to re-distribute it). The most important thing for us is that our applications work the way they are supposed to. Having the source code allows us to fix anything that may not work (or improve on it), allowing our application to meet this goal. This and education are the biggest benefits I really get from anybody's source - be it true Open Source or just providing the source code as Borland has.
LRJ
Or even if you do choose to inflict it on yourself, who cares what version? Doesn't MSVC6 come with MFC 4.2 anyway, same as they've been shipping with MSVC 5 for years?
We recompiled about 200,000 lines of MSVC5 MFC code at work with MSVC6, no problem at all (relating to MFC, I mean -- v6 did find one goofy bug which was, fortunately, harmless. v6 seems to have somewhat smarter warnings than v5 did).
Oh, by the way: If you think MFC is competent C++ code, you are grossly incompetent yourself. Literally, I mean that: Hopelessly incompetent. Not fit to write code in that language for a living. "Fire at first opportunity", that kind of thing. No joke. MFC is that bad, and if you can't see it, you don't know enough about OOP or C++ to give up that pizza-delivery job just yet. I interview programmers, and I always ask them what they like about MFC. It's very instructive. The other guys used to laugh at me for that, and they wouldn't take my conclusions seriously. Several hires'n'fires later, it's official SOP for interviews at our company: We won't hire anybody who can't see what crap MFC is. Heh heh heh.
Don't waste our time.
Not everyone needs to work under the hood on that part of it all.
This is why the Free Software and Open Source philosphies are so different. The Open Source philosophy, being mostly pragmatic, has the unstated opinion that just because the user probably doesn't need or want the source code, it is okay to be taken away. The Free Software philosophy beleives freedom should be granted for all its users, whether or not it is pragmatically beneficial.
Note that a philosophy is different from a community. I actually don't beleive that there are distinct Free Software and Open Source communities, per se. People who don't share in *part* of the Free Software philosophy are probably those who haven't heard of it. I mean, come on, there are no big highlines on ZDNET or CNN about the Free Software Revolution lately, are there? It seems like Linux and Open Source have stolen the hype, but that's okay. And I don't think there are any serious Free Software people who say "I actually prefer crappy software."
The free compiler from Borland represents a misunderstanding about Open Source, the other half, Free Software. I think Open Source and Free Software are two halfs of the same entity. Once they figure out that the community isn't after purely pragmatic goals, then maybe they will change the license to something more free?
Note: I am not attacking you or anyone else. Please don't be hostile in your reply.
I can live without an IDE (long live Gnu make!) but it's very hard to get any significant code ported--even on a trial basis--without a debugger. And Borland reps have said on their newsgroup forums.inprise.com/borland.public.cppbuilder.comma ndlinetools that a debugger is NOT forthcoming and that the best way to obtain one is "buy Borland C++ Builder".
Now it would be brilliant if somebody could hack gdb around to grok the BCC symbols.
Sybase dropped development of their Watcom compiler last year. :-( They are still supporting it till June 2000 though.
http://techinfo.sybase.c om/css/techinfo.nsf/DocID/ID=20510
Now if only they would release the source for it...
Their inline pragma asm was the cleanest way to inline and achieve maximum efficiency.
Cheers
So you are accusing borland of violation
of the GPL????
Where the hell did this come from??
God I hate people like you, every thing you see
has a cospiracy in it.
I'm sure the nsa is monitoring your grandma's
phone lines and sending your x-girlfriend
details on how bad the skid marks were in your
boxers this week.
And like I said, MFC comes with the windows platfrom sdk which is free.
Don't complain... Mine's based on TC++ 3.0, which is a DOS-based compiler... meaning that under Win95, it's rather unstable, and just testing a program can cause it to lock up, forcing you to force quit your test app, and TC along with it, losing your code.
I know, save before you run, but you can't just ALT-F-S, you have to ALT-F-S-ENTER-Y... And most of the people in my class haven't gotten to the 'hit enter to get rid of a dialog' stage yet. They're typing, they hit CTRL-F9, an error comes up, so they reach for the mouse find the cursor, find the button, click it, and go back to the keyboard. Ugh.
It's borken for me as well -- because it does indeed require javascript. I sent the webmaster a detailed complaint. If you view source you can get to the URL it intends to send you to.. but that form didn't work for me either :(
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
The full C++ Builder 5.5 only came out a month or so ago, and this is the compiler for it.
Are you sure of that? I really got the impression from the press release that this is the Borland C++ compiler, not the C++Builder compiler.
Borland has had three C/C++ compiler lines. The first was Turbo C, from the days of DOS. The next was Borland C++, a plain old C++ compiler plus IDE. No RAD or visual form designer, though. C++Builder is a compiler, IDE, and visual designer -- a C++ version of their Delphi product.
Which one is this?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
ftp://ftpd.inprise.com/download/bcppbuilder/FreeCo mmandLineTools.exe
WTF good is a compiler without a debugger? God. This isn't any good at all. How can you write anything except trivial stuff with no debugger? A compiler alone is about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
I was looking forward to the availability of the free compiler however I was disappointed to see there is no 'Visual C++ project and workspace to equivalent Borland C++' convertor. Such a convertor does exist and is supplied with C++ builder. Even the help file which comes with free compiler download documents this. If Borland really wants to increase its market share, they need to get people to shift from the popular VC++ to their compiler.
Hola-
/. pw where I'm logging in from, but this is Michael Swindell from Inprise/Borland (mswindell@borland.com). I was happy to see all the discussion on the Free Compiler and thought I'd explain what exactly is on our mind in doing this. It's really a lot simpler that a lot of people want to read into it. Not too many years ago we were the only company producing very affordable compilers that basically anyone could get their hands on. We were selling "basic" compilers for $49 while the rest of the industry was charging $300 to $1000 just for a compiler and an IDE and "maybe" a debugger. We still sold C/C++ tools with more capabilities like Database support and GUI designers, but it was the inexpensive basics that put the Borland C++ compiler in everyone's hands. All the programmers I know and run into on a daily basis have used Borland tools at one time or another. I could never count the number of people who have told me how they learned on Borland tools and how they much they loved them.
;)
/. pw where I'm logging in from, but this is Michael Swindell from Inprise/Borland (mswindell@borland.com). I was happy to see all the discussion on the Free Compiler and thought I'd explain what exactly is on our mind in doing this. It's really a lot simpler that a lot of people want to read into it. Not too many years ago we were the only company producing very affordable compilers that basically anyone could get their hands on. We were selling "basic" compilers for $49 while the rest of the industry was charging $300 to $1000 just for a compiler and an IDE and "maybe" a debugger. We still sold C/C++ tools with more capabilities like Database support and GUI designers, but it was the inexpensive basics that put the Borland C++ compiler in everyone's hands. All the programmers I know and run into on a daily basis have used Borland tools at one time or another. I could never count the number of people who have told me how they learned on Borland tools and how they much they loved them.
;)
Sorry I don't have my
When we started out to build the next version of C++Builder, version 5, we really wanted to create a low cost stripped down C++Builder IDE and compiler without all the cool visual tools, database, and Internet support. We were going to call this "basic release" Borland C++ v6.0 and sell it for next to nothing - probably $49.00. The goal was to get the compiler back into the hands of every developer. We had even talked about a "Roll the clock back to 1990" marketing campaign like you see gas stations do once in a blue moon for publicity (I know it's corny).
Despite what I've read in this thread, C++Builder is the second most widely sold C++ compiler in the world and there are millions of developer's world wide currently using Borland C++ compilers. C++Builder is a huge product for Inprise/Borland but we aren't happy with being number two.
In the middle of the development cycle for C++Builder it became pretty obvious that a completely new SKU (industry lingo for an actual product - it means stock keeping unit) would be out of the question. We had begun working on Kylix and couldn't spare any development cycles to "strip down" the C++Builder IDE to create a new SKU.
We weren't about to give up though. C++Builder has always shipped with a complete set of command line tools that are exactly the same code that are built into the IDE. So instead of sell a stripped down IDE, hell lets make a product that would include all the command line tools - the compiler, the linker, the make tool, grep, throw it all in. And instead of charging $49.00 lets just give it away free to every developer.
We had people try to convince us that we should restrict the license so that you had to buy C++Builder if you wanted to distribute anything built with it and we rejected it. We had people suggest that we keep the free compiler one version behind C++Builder. We had people suggest that we not include any documentation. No, no, no. We wanted to build a free product that could be used by any developer to build and distribute anything they built with it. The idea was to get the foundation that is C++Builder into the hands of everyone. If you want to buy the visual development, database, and Internet support then we'll be happy to sell them to you as C++Builder. But if you never want anything else from us then we'll be perfectly happy just knowing you're using our technology and enjoying it.
So, then there is the debugger issue. We intended to include TD (Turbo Debugger) in the free download but doh! much of the TD code is licensed from another company and a fixed royalty is paid for each copy. So we still want to get the debugger out there, but we have not yet worked it out with the other company (Not really their fault) If something can be worked out then we'll make TD available free as well. We also have some APIs that may assist others in building or adapting other debuggers into BC++ 5.5 and intend to release them soon.
As for using "Open Source" in the press release you can flat out blame me. I put it in there. I've spoken with many programmers about open source development over the past couple of years and one of the grinding issues for open source development on Windows is that if a developer uses VC++ to build the project, every other developer on the project will with few exceptions have to buy the VC++ compiler. Or if you are using an open source application and want to fix a bug or make a modification, suddenly you have to go out and pay Microsoft to do it. Not a very happy thing to do. Making BCC freely available fixes that problem once and for all. We aren't making any claims that BCC is open source. It's definitely something under consideration but as of today it's not open source.
Anyhow, I know it would be a lot more sexy of a story if we were somehow trying to screw everyone but the real boring truth is that we just want everyone to have our compiler and to be aware of(start marketing here) the absolute coolest C++ tool in the world, C++Builder (end marketing here). And the most important thing is, after all, that we're bringing it all to Linux!
Apologies for poor spelling etc. Best of luck! -Michael Michael Swindell Director of Product Management - Linux Tools Inprise/Borland Hola-
Sorry I don't have my
When we started out to build the next version of C++Builder, version 5, we really wanted to create a low cost stripped down C++Builder IDE and compiler without all the cool visual tools, database, and Internet support. We were going to call this "basic release" Borland C++ v6.0 and sell it for next to nothing - probably $49.00. The goal was to get the compiler back into the hands of every developer. We had even talked about a "Roll the clock back to 1990" marketing campaign like you see gas stations do once in a blue moon for publicity (I know it's corny).
Despite what I've read in this thread, C++Builder is the second most widely sold C++ compiler in the world and there are millions of developer's world wide currently using Borland C++ compilers. C++Builder is a huge product for Inprise/Borland but we aren't happy with being number two.
In the middle of the development cycle for C++Builder it became pretty obvious that a completely new SKU (industry lingo for an actual product - it means stock keeping unit) would be out of the question. We had begun working on Kylix and couldn't spare any development cycles to "strip down" the C++Builder IDE to create a new SKU.
We weren't about to give up though. C++Builder has always shipped with a complete set of command line tools that are exactly the same code that are built into the IDE. So instead of sell a stripped down IDE, hell lets make a product that would include all the command line tools - the compiler, the linker, the make tool, grep, throw it all in. And instead of charging $49.00 lets just give it away free to every developer.
We had people try to convince us that we should restrict the license so that you had to buy C++Builder if you wanted to distribute anything built with it and we rejected it. We had people suggest that we keep the free compiler one version behind C++Builder. We had people suggest that we not include any documentation. No, no, no. We wanted to build a free product that could be used by any developer to build and distribute anything they built with it. The idea was to get the foundation that is C++Builder into the hands of everyone. If you want to buy the visual development, database, and Internet support then we'll be happy to sell them to you as C++Builder. But if you never want anything else from us then we'll be perfectly happy just knowing you're using our technology and enjoying it.
So, then there is the debugger issue. We intended to include TD (Turbo Debugger) in the free download but doh! much of the TD code is licensed from another company and a fixed royalty is paid for each copy. So we still want to get the debugger out there, but we have not yet worked it out with the other company (Not really their fault) If something can be worked out then we'll make TD available free as well. We also have some APIs that may assist others in building or adapting other debuggers into BC++ 5.5 and intend to release them soon.
As for using "Open Source" in the press release you can flat out blame me. I put it in there. I've spoken with many programmers about open source development over the past couple of years and one of the grinding issues for open source development on Windows is that if a developer uses VC++ to build the project, every other developer on the project will with few exceptions have to buy the VC++ compiler. Or if you are using an open source application and want to fix a bug or make a modification, suddenly you have to go out and pay Microsoft to do it. Not a very happy thing to do. Making BCC freely available fixes that problem once and for all. We aren't making any claims that BCC is open source. It's definitely something under consideration but as of today it's not open source.
Anyhow, I know it would be a lot more sexy of a story if we were somehow trying to screw everyone but the real boring truth is that we just want everyone to have our compiler and to be aware of(start marketing here) the absolute coolest C++ tool in the world, C++Builder (end marketing here). And stay tuned because we're bringing it all to Linux!
Best of luck! -Michael Michael Swindell Director of Product Management - Linux Tools Inprise/Borland
didn't over write the original text - doh! Sorry for the dupe post. -ms
I wouldn't hold it against them that you can't
use the SGI STL with them. We always have to
make at least a few changes (to stl_config.h,
if nothing else) when it's ported to a new
compiler, and we haven't done any testing or
porting with BC++ 5.5. We've tested with 5.0x,
but that's quite a different compiler. I
suspect that the necessary changes in this
case are pretty small.
If anyone has tested with 5.5, and can send
us modifications, we'd appreciate the help.
The email address for comments and submissions
is stl@sgi.com.
Those are not free(beer) though. And the source for the compilers is still closed....
All opinions are my own - until criticized
that's why you need IE. the .chm files where the help (the MSDN lib) are formatted in can only be read with IE.
Besides... every large development tool forces you to use SOMETHING you probably don't want to but have to. If you use borland's builder tools, MFC is not doable due to the lack of serious help and support but OWL is fully documented and more at reach, while MFC is THE OOP platform for win32.
ah well...
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
They have it wrong, their move is to show support for free software community, not open source! I am not whining either, I am happy they did so, free software is good, making it open source doesn't matter that much to me, it is a well engineered piece of software, and only very few people understand about compiler theory and would know where to start anyway.
------ Curiosity killed the cat. {satisfaction brought it back | it didn't die ignorant | lack of it is killing mankind
Last time I checked (it was pgcc 2.91, IIRC) g++ generated really bad code for some C++ constructs and generally didn't support C++ well. The current versions are probably better, but to get a better idea of gcc performance, you should use plain C. IMHO using C++ when performance is important is a bad idea unless you really know which C++ features to avoid (eg. inline functions with pgcc 2.91...) or your compiler has very good C++ support AND you are not going to have to compile your software with another C++ compiler.
Dammit! DAMMIT! Curses! I keep seeing references to the concept of "free as in beer," but what the high-holy hell does that MEAN? I've never seen the term explained anywhere.
That's a Windows x86 compiler, not a Win32 platform compiler - meaning that it's not very useful for production development code, since the Win32 support in gcc is very much a work-in-progress, last I checked.
-Stu
You're reading into this what you want to read into it.
This press release states that
- they're releasing a compiler for free (as in beer)
- they hope the open source community can get some use out of it, since some of these people are starting to work on Windows, and most actually do prefer a free (as in beer) compiler since they aren't getting paid to do said open source work
- they hope if people like it on windows, they'll like it on Linux when it is released there
I don't see any masquerading there. Perhaps the only debatable assumption is that the open source community prefers "no cost" software [since all GPL'd software is effectively available at both "cost" and "no cost", depending on how you get access to it]
-Stu
It's borken? oopsi doopsi linki borken bork bork bork -Sweedish chef-
member templates are supported as long as they are inlined.
See Appendix I; I'm not certain that they're doing the right thing, but then again I'm not certain that I'm doing the right thing either
Namespaces support has been much improved in version 6.
I didn't know there was anything wrong with it before. I don't use namespaces much, though, aside from the STL
I still insist that VC6 is fairly ANSI compliant. I'd say it's on par with GCC 2.95
That's good news about GCC (do they have namespaces yet?); I'd thought that MSVC was pretty close to the mark in most respects. I mean, yadda yadda I hate Microsoft and all that, but I don't get all that emotional about compilers unless something specific that I need is broken. The things that really annoy me about MSVC 6 are GUI problems, extra annoyance popups and whatnot.
-----------------------------------------------
Appendix I
Here's what I'm talking about with member templates of templates. Note that this code won't compile, and note also that I'm not ruling out a bug between my own two ears:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
template <class T>
class foo {
public:
// Here's the member:
template< class T2 >
void traverse( const T2 &r2, bool (* callback)( const T &r, const T2 &r2 ) )
{
for ( int i = 0; i <= size; ++i )
if ( ! (*callback)( data[i], r2 ) )
break;
}
T * data;
int size;
};
bool callback( const char &c, const char * const &fmt )
{
printf( fmt, c );
return true;
}
int main()
{
foo< char > f;
char * crap = "vogon";
f.data = crap;
f.size = strlen( crap ) - 1;
// All this over-specific crap is an attempt to get the compiler to admit
// that I'm doing what I'm doing; but it insists that T2 is ambiguous:
// it thinks it could be either const char * or const char *const &
// FWIW I'm seeing the same error with MSVC 5. I'm not certain whether it
// *should* be considered ambiguous or not. I'm also not so sure about
// casting to a reference
// dance on a const reference? You have a right to secure counsel from a
// language lawyer.
const char *fmt = "char: '%c'\n";
const char * const &fmtr = fmt;
f.traverse( (const char * const &)fmtr, callback );
return 0;
}
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
That's exactly the kind of ranting that makes the whole debate so meaningless and inconsequential to 99.9999997% of the programming population. My eyes rolled over and my mouth uttered "whatever!" after the first paragraph. Those ruminations are so abstract and contrived that most people are simply bored. You should have become a psychiatrist and devoted your life to meditating over the differences between the Jungian and Freudian schools of thought. They're definitely more grounded in reality than the FS/OS drivel.
Note: I'm not being hostile here. Just explaining why so many people don't give a shit.
Uwe Wolfgang Radu
Well said Michael, now if I can make a suggestion put all the C++ and Pascal compiler/linkers back to 1983 on the Web Site.
I've seen convincing arguments that the Right Way to fix code is to think until you understand what's actually going on, and that if you have to resort to a debugger you're probably doomed to randomly tweaking the code until it seems to work and never really getting it right.
I use gcc for all my C++, mainly for its compliance with the C++ standard. That's not to say that Borland's compiler is bad, but there doesn't seem any compelling advantage to Borland C++, with or without source.
Unfortunately, VC++ has numerous other bugs and omissions... It doesn't support covariant returns, returns NULL by default when operator "new" fails, etc. It's extremely difficult to compile any decent C++ code in VC++.
As for STL, VC++ includes an old version of the Dinkumware library. It's an excellent library but MS keeps refusing to update to the current version. You could always grab a copy on your own.
Frankly, it doesn't even come close to compiling standard C++ code.
Windows Developers' Journal has a great column called Bug++ of the month, which focuses mainly on C++ bugs in VC++.
The two most glaring errors are these:
(1) Variables declared in for loops are in the wrong scope. Example: for (int i=0; VC++ doesn't treat "i" as local to the loop, the way it's supposed to.
(2) "new" doesn't throw bad_alloc when an allocation fails. Instead, it returns NULL.
Of course, there are numerous other errors, such as the lack of covariant returns and various template problems.
Well, I've spent the last 14 hours trying to log in to get through their survey to be able to download it, with only timeouts to show for it. I created the username and have filled out the survery four times now! I for one appreciate the link
I took me like a fscking half hour to register as for some reason its slow as hell loading the registration forms. So heres some more free beer a direct link to the download.
Direct link to bcc download
I went to the web page and downloaded the Borland 5.5 command line compiler. I filled in the Survey and I agreed to the license. However, I also READ the license and it says, in no uncertain terms, the following:
You may reproduce and distribute, in executable form only, programs which you create using the Software without additional license or fees, subject to all of the conditions in this License Agreement. .
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but doesn't that say that you cannot release the source of any program you write with this software?
Now I guess you can get around that by saying that your source was written in some other tool (since it's a command line tool anyway, that pretty much forces you to), like Notepad, Emacs or Edit, but it seems that the license is particularly opposed to Open Source software.
My guess is that it's a standard license that they threw up on the web page without paying much attention to it, but since Borland has already commented here once, maybe they can clarify?
And doesn't that imply that if you purchased C++ Builder and used it's IDE and Debugger that you then WOULD be bound to release only in executable form and be prohibited from releasing an Open Source project?
It is nice that you have some access to the source, though.
I think you're being naive. All the points you make are valid, but the original post also has valid points, in that it is very unusual for IPO cash to find its way into someone's pocket (rather than being invested in the business). OTOH, this will all get moderated into a thick spray anyway, so who cares? Anyone want to remind me why Rob and Jeff's contract was meant to protect us from VA Linux censorship?
The GCC Compiler listed above will take in nearly any code that MSVC will and spit out native, Win32 PE executable code. It has no problem linking with the MFC, OpenGL, CRT & MSVCRT DLLs that are included with windoze.
Your resounding 'nope' is very unfounded. The compiler Shawn (Allegro Rulz dude!) mentioned above is one of my favorites.
Kagenin
"All warfare is based on deception."
Sun Tzu, "The Art of War"