Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

C++Builder 11 Community Edition

embarcadero.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 76 posts

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#51

Post by sitzkrieg »

ok123456 wrote: post #48
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…

Just use MFC 4.2 imho.

honestly using plain win32api or mfc is the most stable bet on the planet

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#53

Post by jbandela1 »

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.

Visual C++ 1.0 had AppStudio

https://ia800108.us.archive.org/5/items/MicrosoftVisualStudi...

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#54

Post by rbanffy »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #51
ok123456 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just use MFC 4.2 imho.

honestly using plain win32api or mfc is the most stable bet on the planet

COBOL, CICS and 3270 interfaces. That's where the action isn't, which is great if you want APIs that remain stable for decades.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#56

Post by rbanffy »

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…

I really, really, am baffled at how difficult it seems to have a GUI builder tool that outputs a description of the UI that a program can just load (or a compiler transform into a structure inside the program) as objects the program can use, handling events and pushing presentation information into it.

That was pretty much what VB did, with immense success.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#57

Post by notreallymy »

ndiddy wrote: post #18
blinkingled wrote: post #9

Borland's C++ compiler was _fast_. And I mean eye wateringly fast on crappy pre-AMD64 hardware. I wonder if it supports modern C++ today and is still faster than other compilers. (If I am not mistaken this new edition is a offshoot of that?) (Yeah I am not downloading the "Community" edition if I have to provide my name address and phone number. Really if your product needs mindshare and you offer community edition t…

I've downloaded one of their past community editions, their sales team will call and email you. They back off when you tell them you're not evaluating the product for your work, but it's still kind of annoying.

Not only that. He knew the project name I created!

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#58

Post by pjmlp »

ok123456 wrote: post #48
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…

Just use MFC 4.2 imho.

As noted in some of my comments, the way C++/WinRT have messed up the development with total disrespect for paying customers is incredible.

To come back to your point, the aging MFC has better Visual Studio tooling than C++/WinRT will ever have, specially now after being deprecated.

I would have fired the whole team responsible for C++/WinRT.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#59

Post by pjmlp »

deaddodo wrote: post #45
pjmlp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Resource editor for dialogs isn't the same as the C++ Builder experience.

Re: C++Builder 11 Community Edition

#60

Post by pjmlp »

jbandela1 wrote: post #53
pjmlp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Visual C++ 1.0 had AppStudio https://ia800108.us.archive.org/5/items/MicrosoftVisualStudi...

Visual editors for Windows resources in MFC aren't the same as C++ Builder VB like capabilities.
Post reply on HN