Board index » cppbuilder » Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?

Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?

Question:
What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
MS Visual Basic??

Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

Is there any white paper or FAQ on this topic??

al

 

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


Quote
Al Dev wrote in message <36FA6385.4BD0B...@yahoo.com>...
>What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
>MS Visual Basic??

IMO, VB does not even begin to hold a candle to C++Builder.

1- C++Builder has all the RAD advantages of VB, but it uses a real OO
language, C++

2- VB has no equivalent to the STL.

3- VB ActiveX controls can be used from BCB

4- BCB and delphi controls cannot be used in VB

5- VB does not come with source code for its controls. If they don't work
right, tough. BCB comes with complete source. You can override and modify.
You can even rewrite portions of the VCL source if you have to. Having the
source is also critical when debugging.

6- BCB wins on Performance.

Is VB superior in any way? Well, some people would argue that BASIC is
easier to understand than C++. BASIC is a beginners language. But your hands
are tied when it comes to real OO concepts. The language simply does not
support them.

Quote
>Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

Visual C++ is not a RAD tool, its a SAD tool (slow application development).
Its not a bad compiler, but the GUI library that it uses, MFC is not that
good in my opinion.

Harold Howe [TeamB]
http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


Quote
"Harold Howe (TeamB)" wrote:
> [...]
> Visual C++ is not a RAD tool, its a SAD tool

ROTFL

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


Just to make things fair and honest I'll list several VB advantages. Harold
is a member of TeamB of course he is going to say Builder is better.  The
truth be know though  C++ builder does have many advantages over VB but on
the other side of the coin VB has many advantages over builder.  Here are
the advatages of VB.
I'm not endorsing one IDE over the other I just think you should careful
examine your and your companys needs before making a decession

1.) VB is more widely supported and used by companies than builder
2.) VB components are much easier to find and are far more numerous
3.) VB is easier to use in all respects so the learning curve for VB is much
smaller than with Builder
4.) You CAN program OO in VB.  Even though most people don't know this.
5.) VB Documentation is far superior to any Builder documentation and far
simpler to understand
6.) VB is much quicker to code.
7.) Performance in VB is not that different as it is in Builder for most
applications ( we tried it, yes builder is faster but barely.... Maybe on a
massive app this might be substanstial but I have to see it.)
8.) Running an application in the de{*word*81} in VB is almost instanteous in
builder this may take several minutes to get up and running
9.) VB's CodeInsight stuff works.  Builders just doesn't work very well.

So there you have it from both perspectives.  Chose which one you are going
to be most comfortable with and makes since for your organization.  If speed
is a major and I mean major concern choose Builder but know that it will
take you a lot longer to build the application and will be much more
complicated.  If you want ease of coding and fast development time and lots
of Documentation choose VB just know that it will not run as fast as
builder.

Harold Howe (TeamB) <hh...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
news:7ddolj$qv57@forums.borland.com...

Quote

> Al Dev wrote in message <36FA6385.4BD0B...@yahoo.com>...
> >What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
> >MS Visual Basic??

> IMO, VB does not even begin to hold a candle to C++Builder.

> 1- C++Builder has all the RAD advantages of VB, but it uses a real OO
> language, C++

> 2- VB has no equivalent to the STL.

> 3- VB ActiveX controls can be used from BCB

> 4- BCB and delphi controls cannot be used in VB

> 5- VB does not come with source code for its controls. If they don't work
> right, tough. BCB comes with complete source. You can override and modify.
> You can even rewrite portions of the VCL source if you have to. Having the
> source is also critical when debugging.

> 6- BCB wins on Performance.

> Is VB superior in any way? Well, some people would argue that BASIC is
> easier to understand than C++. BASIC is a beginners language. But your
hands
> are tied when it comes to real OO concepts. The language simply does not
> support them.

> >Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

> Visual C++ is not a RAD tool, its a SAD tool (slow application
development).
> Its not a bad compiler, but the GUI library that it uses, MFC is not that
> good in my opinion.

> Harold Howe [TeamB]
> http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


: Al Dev <alav...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Al, please do not cross-post as this is against the guidelines for
these newsgroups. Please place your posting in the single most
appropriate newsgroup. Thanks.

Quote
>Question:
>What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
>MS Visual Basic??

Harold has answered that.

Quote
>Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

>Is there any white paper or FAQ on this topic??

The Borland web site should have something on this. Try
http://www.borland.com/ and click on the "C++Builder 4.0" icon at the
top.

At the place you end up, you should find documents explaining the
benefits of BCB4 over VC++ (there are many <g>).

--
Stefan Hoffmeister      http://www.econos.de/
Due to time constraints I cannot give free face-to-face advice.
Please do apply judgement when sending email.

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


I use both products..both are good, but there is a big difference between
both of them

What people have said here is true, with the exeption of one thing.

Object Oriented Definition (VB does not supports any of these)

Abstraction
Polymorphysm
Inheritance
Encapsulation

Every OOP book says that these are the four components of OOP and VB.

VB is faster in debugging due that it is an interpreted "language". MS says
that is native compiled but thats not true, because you need a huge
MSVBVM60.DLL. Whenever you can take a standalone executable made by VB and
run it from a diskette at another PC without VB or any of its component
then it will be native compiled. Wrong adverti{*word*224}t.

Comparisons:

1. BCB creates, fast standalone executables. VB is interpreted and requires
tons of dll's, ocx, tlb and a huge MSVBVM60.DLL. If you install Office or
other products from MS you can have problems if those installations
substitute any newer or older dll from the one your VB app used with your
project, so your application might not run later.
Winner: BCB

2. in BCB your apps work as programmed. If the program runs well in the
development station it will work on any installed client. In VB the program
will run well sometimes, at other times it will generate strange errors like
General Protection Failures and Illegal operations.
Winner: BCB

3. Programs don't use so much memory as VB. A single form in VB takes about
8 MB of RAM without a single line of code in it.
Winner: BCB

4. BCB Code insight, not the best but helps you. Code insight in VB is
better, but remember it's an interpreted language.
Winner: VB

5. In VB you can't do real multi-threaded applications (run more than one
different process or routine at the same time). In BCB you can.
Winner: BCB

6. ActiveX: Any ActiveX you do on BCB it will run in any other development
platform. An ActiveX made on VB will run only in MS products
Winner: BCB

7. Bugs: BCB has bugs but VB has much more (aprox. 7 times more)
Winner: BCB

Any one who has used both products will tell you this. It's a fact.

Take care
Harold Howe (TeamB) <hh...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
news:7ddolj$qv57@forums.borland.com...

Quote

> Al Dev wrote in message <36FA6385.4BD0B...@yahoo.com>...
> >What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
> >MS Visual Basic??

> IMO, VB does not even begin to hold a candle to C++Builder.

> 1- C++Builder has all the RAD advantages of VB, but it uses a real OO
> language, C++

> 2- VB has no equivalent to the STL.

> 3- VB ActiveX controls can be used from BCB

> 4- BCB and delphi controls cannot be used in VB

> 5- VB does not come with source code for its controls. If they don't work
> right, tough. BCB comes with complete source. You can override and modify.
> You can even rewrite portions of the VCL source if you have to. Having the
> source is also critical when debugging.

> 6- BCB wins on Performance.

> Is VB superior in any way? Well, some people would argue that BASIC is
> easier to understand than C++. BASIC is a beginners language. But your
hands
> are tied when it comes to real OO concepts. The language simply does not
> support them.

> >Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

> Visual C++ is not a RAD tool, its a SAD tool (slow application
development).
> Its not a bad compiler, but the GUI library that it uses, MFC is not that
> good in my opinion.

> Harold Howe [TeamB]
> http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


Quote
Brent D. Coffey wrote in message <7ddqln$qu...@forums.borland.com>...
>Just to make things fair and honest I'll list several VB advantages. Harold
>is a member of TeamB of course he is going to say Builder is better.  The

Team B is not inherently biased to always favor BCB.  I believe that any
review of
DejaNews would reveal that just about every TeamB member clearly voices
opinions about the product both in favor and about things we dont like or
like better
in other products.  However, I can honestly say that the list is getting
very small for me.

Quote
>truth be know though  C++ builder does have many advantages over VB but on
>the other side of the coin VB has many advantages over builder.  Here are
>the advatages of VB.
>I'm not endorsing one IDE over the other I just think you should careful
>examine your and your companys needs before making a decession

>1.) VB is more widely supported and used by companies than builder

Very true.

Quote
>2.) VB components are much easier to find and are far more numerous

When you count Delphi components, which are compatible with Builder, the
number goes substantially up.  Still, the installed userbase of VB will
probably ensure that VB components are more "available", even though they
are ActiveX and are clunky.

Quote
>3.) VB is easier to use in all respects so the learning curve for VB is
much
>smaller than with Builder

This statement is obviously an exaggeration.  I can easily conjure up cases
where the coding in VB is substantially more involved.  The STL in BCB is a
significant advantage.

Quote
>4.) You CAN program OO in VB.  Even though most people don't know this.

Object-based programming and true object oriented programming are not the
same.
Polymorphism, inheriance, encapsulation, and so on, are NOT possible in VB.

Quote
>5.) VB Documentation is far superior to any Builder documentation and far
>simpler to understand

I haven't read VB docs, but I don't doubt it.

Quote
>6.) VB is much quicker to code.

Again, this is not necessarily true.

Quote
>7.) Performance in VB is not that different as it is in Builder for most
>applications ( we tried it, yes builder is faster but barely.... Maybe on a
>massive app this might be substanstial but I have to see it.)

That depends on what you do.  Most things BCB will be much faster.  Others,
it's just a little faster.  For sin, cos, tan, etc, kind of functions, I
think VB is faster.  (Sad statement to admit.)

Quote
>8.) Running an application in the de{*word*81} in VB is almost instanteous in
>builder this may take several minutes to get up and running

You're comparing to BCB3.  BCB4's de{*word*81} is lightning quick.  VB, on the
other hand, is interpreted, so there really isn't any "setup" that must be
done prior to running a program.

Quote
>9.) VB's CodeInsight stuff works.  Builders just doesn't work very well.

Subjective.

Quote
>So there you have it from both perspectives.  Chose which one you are going
>to be most comfortable with and makes since for your organization.  If
speed
>is a major and I mean major concern choose Builder but know that it will
>take you a lot longer to build the application and will be much more
>complicated.  If you want ease of coding and fast development time and lots
>of Documentation choose VB just know that it will not run as fast as
>builder.

It does not necessarily take longer.  For me it would take MUCH longer in
VB.  There are some (many) things wher VB simply doesn't compare though.
The standard library of C++ is an amazing achievement and can easily make
coding in C++ easier than VB (in terms of amount of code required and also
in terms of time.)

Chris (TeamB)

Quote
>Harold Howe (TeamB) <hh...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
>news:7ddolj$qv57@forums.borland.com...

>> Al Dev wrote in message <36FA6385.4BD0B...@yahoo.com>...
>> >What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
>> >MS Visual Basic??

>> IMO, VB does not even begin to hold a candle to C++Builder.

>> 1- C++Builder has all the RAD advantages of VB, but it uses a real OO
>> language, C++

>> 2- VB has no equivalent to the STL.

>> 3- VB ActiveX controls can be used from BCB

>> 4- BCB and delphi controls cannot be used in VB

>> 5- VB does not come with source code for its controls. If they don't work
>> right, tough. BCB comes with complete source. You can override and
modify.
>> You can even rewrite portions of the VCL source if you have to. Having
the
>> source is also critical when debugging.

>> 6- BCB wins on Performance.

>> Is VB superior in any way? Well, some people would argue that BASIC is
>> easier to understand than C++. BASIC is a beginners language. But your
>hands
>> are tied when it comes to real OO concepts. The language simply does not
>> support them.

>> >Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

>> Visual C++ is not a RAD tool, its a SAD tool (slow application
>development).
>> Its not a bad compiler, but the GUI library that it uses, MFC is not that
>> good in my opinion.

>> Harold Howe [TeamB]
>> http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


I wasn't slamming TeamB.  I think you all do a fine job especially Harold.
I just want the person to know the other side of the coin.  I'm not againest
Builder or for VB. If any one can comment on the differences in VB and
Builder from a real world perceptive I feel I am qualified.  I worked for 2
years on a VB team and have worked for 1 year on a Builder team.  I know the
differences, I have seen the struggles of both teams and I have seen the
awsome abilities in both tools.  Actually I would prefer to have a RAD IDE
for PERL now that would be awsome!

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) <ch...@uzdavinis.com> wrote in message
news:7de0gc$r9l9@forums.borland.com...

Quote

> Brent D. Coffey wrote in message <7ddqln$qu...@forums.borland.com>...
> >Just to make things fair and honest I'll list several VB advantages.
Harold
> >is a member of TeamB of course he is going to say Builder is better.  The

> Team B is not inherently biased to always favor BCB.  I believe that any
> review of
> DejaNews would reveal that just about every TeamB member clearly voices
> opinions about the product both in favor and about things we dont like or
> like better
> in other products.  However, I can honestly say that the list is getting
> very small for me.

> >truth be know though  C++ builder does have many advantages over VB but
on
> >the other side of the coin VB has many advantages over builder.  Here are
> >the advatages of VB.
> >I'm not endorsing one IDE over the other I just think you should careful
> >examine your and your companys needs before making a decession

> >1.) VB is more widely supported and used by companies than builder

> Very true.

> >2.) VB components are much easier to find and are far more numerous

> When you count Delphi components, which are compatible with Builder, the
> number goes substantially up.  Still, the installed userbase of VB will
> probably ensure that VB components are more "available", even though they
> are ActiveX and are clunky.

> >3.) VB is easier to use in all respects so the learning curve for VB is
> much
> >smaller than with Builder

> This statement is obviously an exaggeration.  I can easily conjure up
cases
> where the coding in VB is substantially more involved.  The STL in BCB is
a
> significant advantage.

> >4.) You CAN program OO in VB.  Even though most people don't know this.

> Object-based programming and true object oriented programming are not the
> same.
> Polymorphism, inheriance, encapsulation, and so on, are NOT possible in
VB.

> >5.) VB Documentation is far superior to any Builder documentation and far
> >simpler to understand

> I haven't read VB docs, but I don't doubt it.

> >6.) VB is much quicker to code.

> Again, this is not necessarily true.

> >7.) Performance in VB is not that different as it is in Builder for most
> >applications ( we tried it, yes builder is faster but barely.... Maybe on
a
> >massive app this might be substanstial but I have to see it.)

> That depends on what you do.  Most things BCB will be much faster.
Others,
> it's just a little faster.  For sin, cos, tan, etc, kind of functions, I
> think VB is faster.  (Sad statement to admit.)

> >8.) Running an application in the de{*word*81} in VB is almost instanteous in
> >builder this may take several minutes to get up and running

> You're comparing to BCB3.  BCB4's de{*word*81} is lightning quick.  VB, on the
> other hand, is interpreted, so there really isn't any "setup" that must be
> done prior to running a program.

> >9.) VB's CodeInsight stuff works.  Builders just doesn't work very well.

> Subjective.

> >So there you have it from both perspectives.  Chose which one you are
going
> >to be most comfortable with and makes since for your organization.  If
> speed
> >is a major and I mean major concern choose Builder but know that it will
> >take you a lot longer to build the application and will be much more
> >complicated.  If you want ease of coding and fast development time and
lots
> >of Documentation choose VB just know that it will not run as fast as
> >builder.

> It does not necessarily take longer.  For me it would take MUCH longer in
> VB.  There are some (many) things wher VB simply doesn't compare though.
> The standard library of C++ is an amazing achievement and can easily make
> coding in C++ easier than VB (in terms of amount of code required and also
> in terms of time.)

> Chris (TeamB)

> >Harold Howe (TeamB) <hh...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
> >news:7ddolj$qv57@forums.borland.com...

> >> Al Dev wrote in message <36FA6385.4BD0B...@yahoo.com>...
> >> >What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
> >> >MS Visual Basic??

> >> IMO, VB does not even begin to hold a candle to C++Builder.

> >> 1- C++Builder has all the RAD advantages of VB, but it uses a real OO
> >> language, C++

> >> 2- VB has no equivalent to the STL.

> >> 3- VB ActiveX controls can be used from BCB

> >> 4- BCB and delphi controls cannot be used in VB

> >> 5- VB does not come with source code for its controls. If they don't
work
> >> right, tough. BCB comes with complete source. You can override and
> modify.
> >> You can even rewrite portions of the VCL source if you have to. Having
> the
> >> source is also critical when debugging.

> >> 6- BCB wins on Performance.

> >> Is VB superior in any way? Well, some people would argue that BASIC is
> >> easier to understand than C++. BASIC is a beginners language. But your
> >hands
> >> are tied when it comes to real OO concepts. The language simply does
not
> >> support them.

> >> >Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

> >> Visual C++ is not a RAD tool, its a SAD tool (slow application
> >development).
> >> Its not a bad compiler, but the GUI library that it uses, MFC is not
that
> >> good in my opinion.

> >> Harold Howe [TeamB]
> >> http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


In article <7ddqln$qu...@forums.borland.com>, "Brent D. Coffey" <bco...@alltel.net> wrote:

Quote
>Just to make things fair and honest I'll list several VB advantages. Harold
>is a member of TeamB of course he is going to say Builder is better.  The
>truth be know though  C++ builder does have many advantages over VB but on
>the other side of the coin VB has many advantages over builder.  Here are
>the advatages of VB.
>I'm not endorsing one IDE over the other I just think you should careful
>examine your and your companys needs before making a decession

Most of what you said is true from a certain perspective however:

Quote
>4.) You CAN program OO in VB.  Even though most people don't know this.

Not really.

The big problem is that VB is only suitable for _small_ applications. At one
time M$ told customers that you would supposed to use VB for prototyping and
use VC++ for the real application. Since Many Fu*(^%ed Classes was designed by
a person with an IQ of 65, customer chose to do the whole thing in VB.

VB falls apart in large applications. It's basic for heaven's sake. THere's no
way to isolate declarations, VB is Sloooooooooooooooow in compiles. AND you
are dependent on the VB run-time.

John - N8086N
Wise man says "Never use a bank with the initials F. U."
-------------------------------------------
Are you interested in a professional society or
guild for programmers?

See www.programmersguild.org/american.htm
Newsgroup: us.issues.occupations.computer-programmers

EMail Address:
_m-i-a-n-o_@_c_o_l_o_s_s_e_u_m_b_u_i_l_d_e_r_s._c_o_m_

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


I have used VB for years, MS have are gradually turning it into a psuedo
Network\Database language.
To do anything useful with VB you end with a directory full of API modules
and API class modules.
VB distribution and setup files are way inconsistent to the size of your
compilied app.

MS releases a new version of VB before the previous version has all the
bug's fixed.

I wait at least 12 month's before buying new VB version because each version
is subject
to series of 'Service Packs' that fix's bugs in that version.

A developer in my office s{*word*99}ed  his VB5 installation to use the latest VB6
version, after
just one week we all had to help him restore his VB5 installation. While VB6
sit's on the shelf
waiting until until we are happy that it will work.

I recently built a secure Database app, and our team decompiled the exe back
to source in 3 days
(No request's for method's involved no-one will get an answer)

The boss has told every one to study C++ like crazy now, because he is sick
of VB.

I am visting this group, as part of my "Learn C++ quick quest", so I nothing
of C++

Nigel

Quote
Al Dev wrote in message <36FA6385.4BD0B...@yahoo.com>...

:Question:
:What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
:MS Visual Basic??
:
:Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??
:
:Is there any white paper or FAQ on this topic??
:
:al
:

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


Quote
>1.) VB is more widely supported and used by companies than builder

This may be a true statement. But I don't know if I would qualify it as an
advantage for VB.

Quote
>2.) VB components are much easier to find and are far more numerous

Any VB component is also a builder component. From that aspect, you can find
more controls from BCB than you can find for VB.

Quote
>3.) VB is easier to use in all respects so the learning curve for VB is
much
>smaller than with Builder

Maybe its easier to use, but its also a weaker language. This is a tradeoff
in my opinion. If you are not a programmer by nature, you I understand why
you might want to choose VB to play around with. If you are being paid for
your work, the firepower that you get with C++ cannot be underestimaged.

Quote
>4.) You CAN program OO in VB.  Even though most people don't know this.

Booch says that you can't do OO programming without inheritance. VB is not
an OO tool.

Quote
>6.) VB is much quicker to code.

I do not agree.

Quote
>8.) Running an application in the de{*word*81} in VB is almost instanteous in
>builder this may take several minutes to get up and running

Several minutes to start the de{*word*81}? Never had that happen to me. Several
minutes to compile, maybe.

Quote
>9.) VB's CodeInsight stuff works.  Builders just doesn't work very well.

I think it works fine in BCB, but I don't doubt that VB's is a litte quicker
to respond.

Harold Howe [TeamB]
http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


Quote
Brent D. Coffey wrote in message <7de1lq$r9...@forums.borland.com>...
>I'm not againest Builder or for VB.

I'm not against VB either. In fact, I think we owe the original designers of
VB (not microsoft, whoever they bought the tool from) a little gratitude.
Without VB, there would never have been a delphi, and certainly not a
C++Builder. VB was, without a doubt, a revolutionary tool.

But Delphi and C++Builder are more powerful tools. Every project boils down
to writing code, and this is where the power of C++ or even Object pascal
come into play.

Harold Howe [TeamB]
http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


Your technicaly right VB doesn't do inheritance.  But my point was simply
that OO can be faked.  There is a pretty decent How To book for VB that
tells you how to fake stuff like Inhertance I believe the book is call
{*word*155} VB or something like that.  Its been a while since I read it.  But
I think that talking about what VB doesn't do and what Builder does do is
missing the point.  The question was which one is better.  The proper answer
to that question is "it depends" and that is what I was trying to point out.

Harold Howe (TeamB) <hh...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
news:7de4qe$r9e11@forums.borland.com...

Quote

> >1.) VB is more widely supported and used by companies than builder

> This may be a true statement. But I don't know if I would qualify it as an
> advantage for VB.

> >2.) VB components are much easier to find and are far more numerous

> Any VB component is also a builder component. From that aspect, you can
find
> more controls from BCB than you can find for VB.

> >3.) VB is easier to use in all respects so the learning curve for VB is
> much
> >smaller than with Builder

> Maybe its easier to use, but its also a weaker language. This is a
tradeoff
> in my opinion. If you are not a programmer by nature, you I understand why
> you might want to choose VB to play around with. If you are being paid for
> your work, the firepower that you get with C++ cannot be underestimaged.

> >4.) You CAN program OO in VB.  Even though most people don't know this.

> Booch says that you can't do OO programming without inheritance. VB is not
> an OO tool.

> >6.) VB is much quicker to code.

> I do not agree.

> >8.) Running an application in the de{*word*81} in VB is almost instanteous in
> >builder this may take several minutes to get up and running

> Several minutes to start the de{*word*81}? Never had that happen to me.
Several
> minutes to compile, maybe.

> >9.) VB's CodeInsight stuff works.  Builders just doesn't work very well.

> I think it works fine in BCB, but I don't doubt that VB's is a litte
quicker
> to respond.

> Harold Howe [TeamB]
> http://www.bcbdev.com

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


: "Brent D. Coffey" <bco...@alltel.net> wrote:

Quote
>2.) VB components are much easier to find and are far more numerous

???? But you can use exactly the same components (ActiveX) in BCB?

And you have the brilliant Delphi components in addition to that - see
the Delphi Super Page and Torry's Delphi pages.

Quote
>3.) VB is easier to use in all respects so the learning curve for VB is much
>smaller than with Builder

And it stops much earlier <g>

Quote
>8.) Running an application in the de{*word*81} in VB is almost instanteous in
>builder this may take several minutes to get up and running

You are talking about C++Builder 3.0. The current version, C++Builder
4.0 is a completely different story.

Quote
>9.) VB's CodeInsight stuff works.  Builders just doesn't work very well.

If it works differently, is that the same as "doesn't work very well"?

--
Stefan Hoffmeister      http://www.econos.de/
Due to time constraints I cannot give free face-to-face advice.
Please do apply judgement when sending email.

Re:Which one? Borland C++ builder or MS Visual Basic?


On second thought Al.. Forget I said anything about VB being good.  Post
this question in a different forum that is not owned by one the products
because if you post this question here you will only hear how wonderful
builder is and how everyone else can go take a dive off a cliff.  Not to
mention you won't know what to believe.

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) <ch...@uzdavinis.com> wrote in message
news:7de0gc$r9l9@forums.borland.com...

Quote

> Brent D. Coffey wrote in message <7ddqln$qu...@forums.borland.com>...
> >Just to make things fair and honest I'll list several VB advantages.
Harold
> >is a member of TeamB of course he is going to say Builder is better.  The

> Team B is not inherently biased to always favor BCB.  I believe that any
> review of
> DejaNews would reveal that just about every TeamB member clearly voices
> opinions about the product both in favor and about things we dont like or
> like better
> in other products.  However, I can honestly say that the list is getting
> very small for me.

> >truth be know though  C++ builder does have many advantages over VB but
on
> >the other side of the coin VB has many advantages over builder.  Here are
> >the advatages of VB.
> >I'm not endorsing one IDE over the other I just think you should careful
> >examine your and your companys needs before making a decession

> >1.) VB is more widely supported and used by companies than builder

> Very true.

> >2.) VB components are much easier to find and are far more numerous

> When you count Delphi components, which are compatible with Builder, the
> number goes substantially up.  Still, the installed userbase of VB will
> probably ensure that VB components are more "available", even though they
> are ActiveX and are clunky.

> >3.) VB is easier to use in all respects so the learning curve for VB is
> much
> >smaller than with Builder

> This statement is obviously an exaggeration.  I can easily conjure up
cases
> where the coding in VB is substantially more involved.  The STL in BCB is
a
> significant advantage.

> >4.) You CAN program OO in VB.  Even though most people don't know this.

> Object-based programming and true object oriented programming are not the
> same.
> Polymorphism, inheriance, encapsulation, and so on, are NOT possible in
VB.

> >5.) VB Documentation is far superior to any Builder documentation and far
> >simpler to understand

> I haven't read VB docs, but I don't doubt it.

> >6.) VB is much quicker to code.

> Again, this is not necessarily true.

> >7.) Performance in VB is not that different as it is in Builder for most
> >applications ( we tried it, yes builder is faster but barely.... Maybe on
a
> >massive app this might be substanstial but I have to see it.)

> That depends on what you do.  Most things BCB will be much faster.
Others,
> it's just a little faster.  For sin, cos, tan, etc, kind of functions, I
> think VB is faster.  (Sad statement to admit.)

> >8.) Running an application in the de{*word*81} in VB is almost instanteous in
> >builder this may take several minutes to get up and running

> You're comparing to BCB3.  BCB4's de{*word*81} is lightning quick.  VB, on the
> other hand, is interpreted, so there really isn't any "setup" that must be
> done prior to running a program.

> >9.) VB's CodeInsight stuff works.  Builders just doesn't work very well.

> Subjective.

> >So there you have it from both perspectives.  Chose which one you are
going
> >to be most comfortable with and makes since for your organization.  If
> speed
> >is a major and I mean major concern choose Builder but know that it will
> >take you a lot longer to build the application and will be much more
> >complicated.  If you want ease of coding and fast development time and
lots
> >of Documentation choose VB just know that it will not run as fast as
> >builder.

> It does not necessarily take longer.  For me it would take MUCH longer in
> VB.  There are some (many) things wher VB simply doesn't compare though.
> The standard library of C++ is an amazing achievement and can easily make
> coding in C++ easier than VB (in terms of amount of code required and also
> in terms of time.)

> Chris (TeamB)

> >Harold Howe (TeamB) <hh...@gowebway.com> wrote in message
> >news:7ddolj$qv57@forums.borland.com...

> >> Al Dev wrote in message <36FA6385.4BD0B...@yahoo.com>...
> >> >What are strong reasons for picking the Borland C++ builder instead of
> >> >MS Visual Basic??

> >> IMO, VB does not even begin to hold a candle to C++Builder.

> >> 1- C++Builder has all the RAD advantages of VB, but it uses a real OO
> >> language, C++

> >> 2- VB has no equivalent to the STL.

> >> 3- VB ActiveX controls can be used from BCB

> >> 4- BCB and delphi controls cannot be used in VB

> >> 5- VB does not come with source code for its controls. If they don't
work
> >> right, tough. BCB comes with complete source. You can override and
> modify.
> >> You can even rewrite portions of the VCL source if you have to. Having
> the
> >> source is also critical when debugging.

> >> 6- BCB wins on Performance.

> >> Is VB superior in any way? Well, some people would argue that BASIC is
> >> easier to understand than C++. BASIC is a beginners language. But your
> >hands
> >> are tied when it comes to real OO concepts. The language simply does
not
> >> support them.

> >> >Also why borland C++ builder is better than MS visual C++??

> >> Visual C++ is not a RAD tool, its a SAD tool (slow application
> >development).
> >> Its not a bad compiler, but the GUI library that it uses, MFC is not
that
> >> good in my opinion.

> >> Harold Howe [TeamB]
> >> http://www.bcbdev.com

Go to page: [1] [2] [3]

Other Threads