Slashdot Mirror
Borland C++ For Linux
Ardax writes: "Looks like Borland is going to be releasing C++ for Linux, according to this InfoWorld article. We'll be seeing more details at LinuxWorld in NY next week. The article doesn't mention whether this will be C++ Builder for Linux, or 'just' a command line compiler. No matter what, this is a sweet thing. I wonder how it will compare to gcc? (I wonder if it will be able to compile the kernel? :-) ) If it's the whole C++ Builder shebang, I wonder if there will be an Open Edition?
Borland's Community site has a blurb about this. There's no comments at the Borland community yet, but some interesting commentary might pop up there."
The blurb (linked to here mentions that Borland is going to announce C++Builder for Linux. Just a tasty little tidbit that needs to be adressed:P
The time of day is 29:33.
The intel compiler uses the source file's extension to decide whether to compile with the C or C++ syntax
C++
D:\IntelC\Compiler50\ia32\bin>icl ft.cpp
Intel(R) C++ Compiler for 32-bit applications, Version 5.0.1 Build 010525Z
Copyright (C) 1985-2001 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
ft.cpp
ft.cpp(5): error: expected an identifier
int new=3;
^
ft.cpp(7): error: expected a type specifier
return new;
^
ft.cpp(7): warning #120: return value type does not match the function type
return new;
^
compilation aborted for ft.cpp (code 2)
C
D:\IntelC\Compiler50\ia32\bin>icl ft.c
Intel(R) C++ Compiler for 32-bit applications, Version 5.0.1 Build 010525Z
Copyright (C) 1985-2001 Intel Corporation. All rights reserved.
ft.c
Microsoft (R) Incremental Linker Version 6.00.8447
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corp 1992-1998. All rights reserved.
-out:ft.exe
ft.obj
intel has already release C and Fortran 90 compilers for Linux that are free for non-comercial use. These are very fast compilers when used on a Pentium IV.
And it even has been floating around for YEARS. Look at some screenshots of it here. I think it might be what you are looking for.
[--- PGP key and more on http://www.root42.de ---]
The gcc we all use is much slower than the gnu-pro gcc you can buy from Cygnus/Redhat too.
kdevelop
KDE Studio Gold
or just search through
apps.kde.com
How about Scintilla and SciTE?
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
>How many people actually use Borland's C++ products currently?
I can't quote actual statistics, but: we have a ton of C++ Builder boxes around the office, and we also make extensive use of JBuilder. The place where I used to work, were pretty much all Borland fanatics, and had their own NNTP server, made up of borland fans. A lot of them were "Team B", the Borland Users Group kinda thing.
>Of those that do, is this just brand loyalty from the Windows 3.1 days?
Kinda. From reading the documentation and talking to them, they tend to say the same things. 1, it was a better compiler for a LONG time when compared to Windows (arguable, of course). 2, it was more command-line friendly, if you didn't want to use the full-on IDE; this mattered because a lot of them were Unix expatriates having to get work in a PC world, and they wanted a PC compiler that acted like cc/gcc. This too is arguable; I'm just reporting, here. 3, many reported better standards compliance, and more functionality in doing things other than Windows (but on x86). For example, one person I knew did embedded x86 development and liked the Borland tools. The general consensus was Microsoft's tools were *Windows* compilers, whereas Borland's were more multifunction. Lastly, they all loved the IDE, considering it more mature and stable than VC++. The majority of them are excited about moving to Linux with BC++ and I expect a small but noticeable increase in Linux acceptance once this comes out. The glare of running cash registers may not light up the skies, but I can think of at least a dozen people off the top of my head who will be willing to spend moderately large money to get their hands on a Borland toolchain for Linux.
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
I get twice as fast an executable when compiling my application with GCC 2.95.2 under Cygwin, compared to Borland C++ 5.5 under C++Builder, both with full optimization.
Agreed, if that was the case. Fortunately, it isn't. DDD ships with most Linux distributions, and gives you the nice GUI interface you're used to, plus some extra goodies on top (the ability to visually see the state of data structures like linked lists or binary trees is an amazing debugging tool). And since this is Unix, naturally there are other choices if you don't like DDD: Code Crusader, mxdb, mxgdb, xxgdb etc.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Not even close to true. A lot of developers are absolutely passionate about Delphi and C++ Builder. I think they'd riot in the streets if either product were discontinued. Not that there's any danger of this. Even in Borland's darkest days, these products were making money, and never stopped being under active development.
There are lots of reasons for this lack of visibility. The most obvious one is the reluctance of managers to commit to non-Microsoft tools, despite rabid lobbying from their engineers. And there always seem to be rumors of Borland's imminent meltdown -- even as we turn a profit and scramble to house the new hires.
One way to measure the penetration of Borland RAD products is to download and run the VCL Scanner, which uncovers installed Windows programs that use Borland libraries. First time I used it, I was shocked to discover how many of these there were. Some of them were basic system utilities that I had used for years.
Linus used a Borland compiler to bootstrap the development of Linux, because Minix was compiled with that. (Then when the system was good enough to host GCC, and serve as its own development platform, that compiler was abandoned).
About 8 years ago I got into OS/2 in a big way and wanted to start developing for it. CSet from IBM was very expensive so I was ecstatic when Borland C++ came out for OS/2. Version 1.0 was pretty damned good - a powerful IDE, a decent set of helper classes (no GUI ones though) and a syntax highlighting editor in an age when IBM CSet++ shipped with no editor whatsoever. All was good or so I thought and I put aside concerns about the few bugs because it worked dammit and 1.01 would iron out the remaining problems.
Version 1.01 came and had some fixes for the existing problems but overall had *more* bugs than 1.0. The classes didn't work as designed, the debugger more frequently hung your machine than worked and worst of all the IDE crashed - randomly. All was getting decidely iffy but I knew that 1.5 was out so I still held out hope.
Version 1.5 and all hope flew out the window and emigrated to Australia. I had never seen a buggy piece of shit in life! The all new improved version may as well had alpha written all over it. It was unusable and I gave up after discovering threading was completely broken - a feature I had used up until then.
Soon after I switched to IBM CSet++. Now that was a compiler. It might have had a totally stinky UI (none at all), but the command line tools were excellent and it came with some pretty good classes too.