text:
#### Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

# MS Visual C++ or C++ Builder?

This topic is 5995 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

I wonder, is Visual C++ really better than Borlands Builder? VC++ is the most popular, i know, but thats much because of the Microsoft brand right? I''ve used older versions of them both and Im planning to buy VC++.net or the latest C++ Builder (5 right?). I need opinions and suggestions from people that have used them both. Im leaning towards Borland though...

##### Share on other sites
Well what do you want to create ?

Borland: Good for windows and GUI apps.

VC: DirectX and games.

##### Share on other sites
Actually, I want to make games. I know DirectX is created by Microsoft but how does DX and VC++ work together, i mean are there any visual aids or if you type the first letters in a DX function\interface does the whole name pop up under(like a tooltip)?

##### Share on other sites
DX is basically just including the right headers into your project and putting the lib''s associated with the headers into your project settings. There is no actual visual change (heh, I wondered about this myself long time ago so I know where your coming from) to the compiler.

DX is for VC++, but there is some way to get special lib''s (or something like this) that work for Borland. But if your anything like me, you would rather just stick with the "official" method.

*ahem*
~All your base are belong to us~

##### Share on other sites
I think that the MSVC IDE is much better then the Borland C++5 one. You get the parameter popup thingies, the good formatting of case :''s, curly braces, pressing enter goes to the "right" place, etcetera.

Z.

##### Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Zaei
I think that the MSVC IDE is much better then the Borland C++5 one. You get the parameter popup thingies,

Borland C++ Builder 4 already has that feature. Thus, I''m sure BCB 5 would have it. Unless of course, they took a step backwards.

##### Share on other sites
Hmm Zaei, did you try BC++ ? Version 4 did include all those things, I have not tried BC++ v5, but I don''t think they removed these.
BC++ pros : easier to use for windows apps, better visual class design and useable tool class ( TStringList against CStringList anytime ... )
BC++ cons : some libs needs to be converted to be used
VC++ pros : more widespread, so you can get better support, and most libs are in their format
VC++ cons : once you start a project with M$tools you are stuck with it I think this is like martial arts, it depends on the style you like, I am a primal anti M$ so perhaps this does influence my judgement (in the same wya I prefer openGl over DirectX )

Well this is what I think of it, feel free to disagree...

##### Share on other sites
Hi
I''ve worked with both compilers, i have also created game and non-game apps with them and here comes my point :

For non-game applications that have intensive use of GUI and interface BCB is much better both in speed of development and
final code. also for Multimedia apps.

For games there is not much difference coz a game is usually calling its own stuff in the winmain loop, no VCL and usually no MFC is used. But : VC is better on code optimization and executable size, for this reason VC is better for games.

Thats all i''ve got from 6 years of windows c++ programming with BCB & VC.

--Ali Seyedof
http://www.geocities.com/seyedof/

##### Share on other sites
DX 8 works with Builder 5 and VC++ 6.
M$provide libs only for the VC, but you can convert them to Builder Lib. The only problem are the D3DX libs. They are static and can't be converted, but a helpful guy made a DLL for them .. so not a problem ..for now. I have almost always used Borland compilers (Pascal/Delphy c/c++).. i really hate all M$ products ... not because of M$...they simply sux (i know , i can be more objective) . Builder has a really good IDE.... I simply hate VC++ 6 IDE. What annoys me more in VC is the compiler ..and the "for" scope issues (any know if there is a way to fix it?). Builder is an ANSI compliant compiler ..so no prob ..even if you are not using the ANSI. It's MFC compatible too. VC templates support is simply inexistent ....Builder has one of the best template support ... Borland VCL is much better than MFC. The speed of the compiled programs are almost the same. Last time i have measured, BC++ compiled program was faster.... but it is relative .... depends greatly from the options. Borland makes smaller console programs .... There is a solution to VC IDE problem , Visual Assist plugin (costs$). It's really worth full product. It's a parser that makes your live better. It scans all
the headers, highlights the different data (custom def types, var, functions ...), gives you info about functions (present in Builder) ...

Some people complain about Builder debugger. I am happy with. I could not even run properly the VC one... really not intuitive ..for me (ok, i haven't
spent much time trying)

Only VC supports DX debug lib, only it can give you the debug information direcly ... But you can use dbmon.exe (in DX sdk) to watch the debug msgs
...

....to much writing to say nothing ...i am confused my self.
I want to continue using Builder. But M$makes things difficult ...lac of support for Borland. For now it's ok ..but later ? Builder is more complete tool and cheaper. If i had a real choice ... i would write and test in Builder, but make the release compilation with VC++ and Intel Compiler ...(because there is no IntelC for Builder ), but because of the VC scope issues ....i can't do that (it doesn't even understand headers like [stdlib], i.e. only [stdlib.h] old C libs std and not the new C++ std libs, [] brackets are <> just cant make them work with the forum) Try to search for free IDE on the net... and use Borland C++ 5 free compiler command tools .... at least until VC.NET shows up . Oh , you can d/l a beta from M$ dev site ..i am sure it worth a try. Be sure to get Builder 5 demo too.

The Aero Section : http://fly.to/TheAeroSection/
The Aero Section is a large military aircraft photo gallery.

Edited by - dataman on September 24, 2001 9:36:40 AM

Edited by - dataman on September 24, 2001 9:39:04 AM

##### Share on other sites
Yeah, I have tried BC 5, and, at least from the limited typing i did, it doent align my close curly brace to the open. Sorry for any mistakes i made =).

Z.


text:
# Complex analysis- poles vs. Zeros, etc.

1. Oct 19, 2009

### quasar_4

I am having a hard time understanding the difference between poles and zeros, and simple poles versus removable poles. For instance, consider $$f(z)=\frac{z^2}{sin(z)}$$. we can expand sine into a power series and pull out a z, so doesn't that remove the singularity at z=0? Also, I don't see why n*pi would not also be removable since it doesn't seem to be a problem in the series expansion (but according to my graded homework, 0 is a zero and n*pi is a simple pole)... Can someone help me out here?

2. Oct 19, 2009

### Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
That's how you remove the singularity. But this operation produces a new (partial) function that is not f. (The difference being that this function is defined at 0 whereas f is not)

3. Oct 19, 2009

### quasar987

But 0 is not a zero, it is a removable singularity! :/

4. Oct 20, 2009

### HallsofIvy

?? What is your point? Hurkyl's point was that if f(z) has a "removable singularity" at $z_0$, yes, you can "remove" it but then you get a different function, g(z). g(z)= f(z) for all z except $z_0$. He never said anything about being a zero.

5. Oct 20, 2009

### quasar987

My comment was in response to
HallofIvy.

6. Oct 26, 2009

### skook

To try and sum up:
1) Cancel z top and bottom to show that the bottom term -> 1 as z -> 0. So that would remove the singularity and make the function analytic at zero.
1a) Because the bottom can't go to zero, the function must -> 0 when z -> 0. So there is a zero of the function at z = 0.
2) But if you don't cancel the z and stick with the original function, the sin(z) will vanish every time z -> n*pi and the function will go through the roof. So there are simple poles when z = n*pi.

hope this helps.

Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

format: plain