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."
I could see there being a market for Borland if they released a nice GUI C++ development environment; but if it was just a command line program, can someone explain to me why they would use it instead of gcc. I just see no reason to pay for it if it is a command line program. I can't believe that they would offer some feature that gcc doesn't.
What good is a used up world, and how could it be worth having? --Sting
Hmmm...
I wonder if this will be like Borland C V1.5 (or was it 1.0? I'm getting old anyways...):
main()
{
int a = 4 / 8;
printf("%d\n", a);
}
Result: 2
It's not a joke kiddos. It was a real bug, just like that.
Borland has always put out wonderful tools, and really worked hard on making their compilers optimized on their platforms, but I think they've missed the boat here. This is most likely for easy porting of other applications written with Borland tools to Linux, because Linux already has a solid toolchain of its own. Regardless, I hope they get back on track.
What I miss most is the old text-based Borland IDE. That was the most productive development environment ever. RHIDE is close, but wasn't stable on Linux when last I checked.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Borland's IDEs (baring of licensing crap ;-) have always been exceptional. Current opensource IDEs are decent, but they are no where near the quality.
It comes down to maturity. Borland has been making powerful IDEs for a very long time. Development for opensource IDEs however is a fairly new thing (KDEvelop is good, but it is still fairly unreliable and not as featured as I'd like).
After years of tweaking, Borland's got it down pat.
Why bother.
Kylix was supposed to be compiler independent. The current generations have only the Object Pascal compiler. IIRC, the next version of Kylix will support C++ too.
¦ ©® ±
It's not clear (at least from the sketchy information in the article) if there will be an Open Source/free version, but I hope so, and here's why: currently my university requires us to use Windows in our computer science classes, mainly because Microsoft gives us a lot of expensive software for free (if Microsoft makes it, students probably have access to it--Visual Studio 6, Visual SourceSafe, SQL Server, Windows XP Pro, ...)
That leaves people like me--who prefer to run Linux instead of Windows--at a disadvantage. I have to have a dual boot system, and I have to reboot to Windows every time I need to hack out some code for a class. Now, if Borland releases their C++ for Linux and makes it free, I know I could convince a couple of my professors to ditch the Microsoft stuff and use teach the class using Linux and Borland. That would enable me--and the rest of the university--to gain some practical experience coding on the Linux platform, and not just on Windows. Don't get me wrong, there isn't anything wrong with knowing how to code using Windows and Microsoft Visual Studio (in fact it's probably a good resume item), but I'd like to get familiar with some alternatives before I enter the workforce.
The kernel is not written in pure C, even though it's portability would make you think so. It is writen in C with a ton of GNU extentions. So the kernel is really tied to gcc. (which actually makes it more protable because gcc runs on a ton of machines)
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
Const defaults to int. You're doing a direct comparison of a floating point with an integer.
I have a PhD in Visual C++. This is widely known among my graduate students.
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.
I applaud Borland for choosing to put more of their fine products on Linux. I have personally used Borland's products since version 3 of their Pascal compiler, which was a pretty long time ago. In conjunction with TurboPower's libraries, which were distributed with complete source code and no royalties, Borland's compilers, both for Pascal and C/C++, were always truly amazing products.
Now, with the increasing popularity and acceptance of Linux, I believe that Borland's products have found a new home, better than on DOS and Windows. I strongly believe that if Borland continues to implement their fine software on Linux, some great applications, brand-name commercial as well as free, will show up on Linux, making it a strong and competitive alternative to the Windows family of operating systems.
Perhaps someday, a couple of years down the road, Microsoft will begin implementing their software, such as a Microsoft Office for Linux package, just as some years ago, IBM sold native Windows versions of their OS/2 applications. Hopefully, this move by Borland will bring that a bit closer to reality.
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 ---]
How many people actually use Borland's C++ products currently? Of those that do, is this just brand loyalty from the Windows 3.1 days? I've been part of product teams (all using C/C++) developing on Windows, Mac, and various unices, and I've never seen Borland being used anywhere. The last Borland product I've seen used was Turbo Pascal for DOS back in high school.
This isn't meant to start a flame war, I've just never actually seen a Borland C++ product being used, and am curious how big their market is. It may be that the Linux version would actually outsell the Windows version due to lack of competition. And it would totally rock if they released the Borland C++ builder IDE that supported not only the Borland compiler, but gcc and icc (intel) as well.
Needless to say, if they do release the IDE, I'll be very interested to see how well it works. I've tried KDevelop, CodeWarrior (older version - 5.0?), Anjuta, a couple other gnome things, etc. And I'm sorry to say none of them allow me to be as productive as I am with VC++ (with the VisualAssist add-in). CodeWarrior was probably the worst (I hope for their sake 6.0 was better), and KDevelop the most mature. However, none of the open source efforts play nice with cross platform projects (damn it, I don't WANT the make files in the same directory as the source!!!), and are terrible when dealing with large projects. If Borland's product can deal with large cross-platform projects, I'll be a happy camper.
Dan
kdevelop
KDE Studio Gold
or just search through
apps.kde.com
The kernel . . . is writen in C with a ton of GNU extentions. So the kernel is really tied to gcc. (which actually makes it more protable because gcc runs on a ton of machines)
Um, no. Using compiler-specific extensions does not make code more portable by any possible interpretation of the word. If it didn't use any extensions, then not only could GCC compile it, so could Intel's compiler, Sun's compiler, etc. That would be portable.
While we're on the subject, though, it would be nice to see at least some of the GCC extensions make it into other compilers. I try to write code without them as much as possible, but in particular I've found the typeof() construct useful, as well as the ability to initialize arbitrary members of a union (yes, I know I could just turn them into structs, but that's a waste of memory). Does anyone know alternate ways of doing things like this in standard C, or whether the GCC folks are doing anything to try and get their extensions included in the standard?
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
Actually this was discussed on the borland.kylix.non-technical newsgroup a while ago. The aim is apparently to be able to compile ANY C/C++ Linux application, in fact the complete system, including the kernel. Thus it will need to emulate gcc's extensions.
We'll see if this turns out or not. That's just what I recall reading in discussions.
But if so it would be pretty sweet, assuming you're not a Free Software zealot (which I am, kind of, but I can see some coolness factor in this). If the pull it off, someone will be able to build an ENTIRE Linux distribution with their optimized compiler. Everything could run faster.
The upshot of that discussion was that VectorC {PC:Linux} is sheduled for release in April this year. That being based on our 2.0 engine so with C++ compatibility (currently VectorC is C only). While there was (unsurprisingly) a load of anti closed-source rhetoric in public, we did recieve a good number of serious private enquiries from people looking for a compiler such as ours on the Linux platform. It was enough to form a view that the platform is viable for us.
Ultimately I can't see any serious argument against having development tools such as these (Borland C++ and VectorC) on Linux. While it's likely of less interest to the open source/free evangelists wanting everything for free, there's definately demand where Linux is increasingly being used as an industrial platform.
Codeplay looks forward to competing with Borland on Linux.
Mat Bettinson - Codeplay Ltd.
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.
Well, Borland is going to 'support' Linux.
Whoooopie. I'm so excited I could just lift a finger in celebration. The "next article" finger to be exact.
Borland was a Godsend back in DOS days, when the Microsoft platform was unreliable and probably the least compatible C compiler ever invented. Those of us who were doing development work on MouseyDos spent our hard earned dollars on Turbo C, Borland C, release after release.
Then along came Windows and competing products from other vendors. Borland provided us with an extensible object framework better than anything that Microsoft had to offer. And then, something happened. All of a sudden, Borland was in bed with Microsoft, and those of us who worked with ObjectWindows, or (horrors) that "other" platform were abandoned like poor relatives at a party.
I personally give Borland a share of the blame for the extension of the Microsoft monopoly and the eradication of that "other" platform.
And now, they're going to bring out a product for Linux.
Well, friends, I won't spend a single cent on a Borland platform for Linux. Linux already has a mature tool chain available (more than one, actually) and in my humble opinion, Borland's products are unreliable. They are unreliable for the same reason every other proprietary product is unreliable; one never knows if tomorrow that product will even exist. If I find serious errors with the product, will Borland fix them, or will they once again decide that politics or bribery rule, and abandon their product (and me) to their own interests?
No, friend. I greet Borland's announcement of Linux support with all the enthusiasm of Borland's last six years of announcements. After spending thousands of dollars on their products only to be left standing in the rain, I will never, ever, buy another Borland product again.
Not ever.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
Out of over 200 comments, so far, there have only been a couple of mentions of the license agreement fiasco. Why is this? Does the Slashdot community forget so soon? This was a really big thing less than 2 weeks ago, and now everyone's happy because Borland is releasing a C++ compiler for linux, hmmm. This seems hypocritical to me. Borland never really apologized for their EULA, they just excused it as a mistake made by their lawyers.See this. There enterprise agreement is not industry standard, it is ridiculous. I guess that it doesn't matter what a company does, as long as it's not Microsoft. It's hard to replace an OS, but not so hard to replace an app--I, personally, would use someting a little less polished, rather than support a company that claims to support a community, but, really, doesn't.
I'm really not trying to be a troll here, I just thought that this needed to be brought up, and, discussed.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
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.
Borland is entering a tough market. The Linux system already comes with C++ compilers and IDEs. Perhaps not as good, but free (GPL). This makes any sale dubious. Their products may well be better, but how large a market is there for better products against already established free products?
One place where they have a big edge is in dialog building. Kylix already builds dialogs under Linux, so they know how.
Perhaps what their goal is, is to get people using their products on Linux to be cross-platform, but to make their pile selling compilers for the Windows versions? Sounds chancy to me, but it would let them sell the Linux system at around cost, and still make SOMETHING. I'm dubious about proprietary libraries, but I believe that the GPL (NOT LGPL!) version of the library is available at sourceforge. And that Borland holds sole rights, so they can license it commercially if you pay them.
This means that you can use Borland libraries in GPL software without cost, but if you want to sell the product, Borland gets a share. (Sounds fair to me. Viable? I don't know.)
Given this evaluation, past comments, etc., and what I expect is that this C product will be the C++ companion product to Kylix. And it will probably be available on the same basis.
As to what they'll call it, companies are unpredictable, but what I think they should call it is:
Kylix C++, a C++ environment for the Kylix family.
Then they could follow it up with:
Kylix Python, a Python environment for the Kylix family.
Kylix Java, a Java environment for the Kylix family.
etc.
The kicker would be that all of the various pieces could work together in a relatively seamless way. (This takes a bit of work, but SuperCede Java did this between Java, C, and C++ on the PC side years ago. They finally got bought out by someone who raised the price to $10,000 per copy, but it worked pretty well when it was affordable.) And, of course, gcc has always worked this way.
.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.