C++Builder 11 Community Edition • Hacker News Board

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#41

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:04 PM UTC

avodonosov wrote: post #16

pjmlp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similar plan, in 2019 I went back going to distributed systems/Web, where Microsoft technologies are one among many others that get used on a polyglot agency, the usual "A jack of all trades is a master of none, but often times better than a master of one.". For doing Windows stuff, I would rather advocate for Win32, Forms/WPF. In regards to C++ stuff, either C++ Builder if it fits the budget, or Qt. It is quite trag…

How about .NET MAUI?

They decided to rewrite Xamarin.Forms, it uses WinUI on Windows, Catalyst on macOS, and VS4Mac is now officially dead and one has to use VSCode instead, and they are all into this Blazor Hybrid as well, with Web views.

Take your own conclusions on its future.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#42

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:06 PM UTC

deaddodo wrote: post #34

germandiago wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How good is C++ Builder? Ever tried? I Saw It a couple of years ago and it looked good actually but noone seems to use it.

Imagine classic Visual C++ with it's form builder (versus the modern WinRT stuff) and hooks...it's much like that. I would say the experience is a little smoother. I do remember the version I used to use had issues with the form builder to where getting exactly what you wanted was finicky (the rendered/preview version was never quite what the compiled version ended up as).

If only VC++ ever had a form builder for C++ like C++ Builder has been doing for 30 years.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#43

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:07 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #13

The main problem with Borland C++ is that it is still a 32bit compiler.

Which is why there is a new clang based compiler now.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#44

Post by pjmlp » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:10 PM UTC

jahnu wrote: post #21

pjmlp wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The custom C++ extensions argument is a very bad lame excuse, it isn't as if WinRT was ever going to be cross platform, or not every single C and C++ compiler used in production (not toy compilers) doesn't have their own set of extensions anyway. I also don't consider anything related to WinUI/UWP trustworthy for production development, and I used to advocate for it. Stuff like how .NET Native, C++/CX => C++/WinRT tr…

Same. The previous company I worked for we went all in on UWP for our Windows SDK. An almost complete waste of time as Microsoft failed to deliver on their promises.

It is baffling to watch community calls and have them talk about rewrites and dropped tooling features as if it wasn't a big deal, being asked for the n-th time since Windows 8.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#45

Post by deaddodo » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:16 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #42

deaddodo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine classic Visual C++ with it's form builder (versus the modern WinRT stuff) and hooks...it's much like that. I would say the experience is a little smoother. I do remember the version I used to use had issues with the form builder to where getting exactly what you wanted was finicky (the rendered/preview version was never quite what the compiled version ended up as).

If only VC++ ever had a form builder for C++ like C++ Builder has been doing for 30 years.

https://softelvdm.com/Vault/softelvdm.com/documentation/SftM...

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#46

Post by phendrenad2 » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:18 PM UTC

I understand why there isn't a Mac version, but it's still a bit disappointing.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#47

Post by Narishma » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:51 PM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #13

The main problem with Borland C++ is that it is still a 32bit compiler.

This is C++ Builder, not Borland C++.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#48

Post by ok123456 » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #6

sirwhinesalot wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can definitely understand them wanting to drop custom C++ extensions, but it's a shame they can't figure out how to provide a nice development experience for their newer UI platforms. If only .NET actually works reasonably well with it (and there's a huge managed native overhead) maybe it should have just been WPF 2.0? Not that I would use WinUI anyway, microsoft cannot be trusted with UI frameworks anymore.

The custom C++ extensions argument is a very bad lame excuse, it isn't as if WinRT was ever going to be cross platform, or not every single C and C++ compiler used in production (not toy compilers) doesn't have their own set of extensions anyway. I also don't consider anything related to WinUI/UWP trustworthy for production development, and I used to advocate for it. Stuff like how .NET Native, C++/CX => C++/WinRT tr…

Just use MFC 4.2 imho.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#49

Post by nurettin » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

The "community edition" version of delphi had no visual editor, no way to build a bpl and it was 32bit only. I don't know thos c++11 compiler's features, it isn't immediately apparent in the mobile site.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#50

Post by gavinray » Fri, Sep 15, 2023, 5:04 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #3

The only VB like development experience for C++. Microsoft completely messed up the XAML / C++/CX development experience with internal politics, only to have the team responsible for C++/WinRT going on to have fun in Rust/WinRT, leaving the former in maintenance state.

> Come in thread

> Ctrl+F "pjmlp"

I was not disappointed.