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."

The next version of Kylix will probably have C++..

[frleong]

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.

Re:Compile the kernel?

[AYEq]

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)

Wonderful

[rice_burners_suck]

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.

Re:Resume Item

[Ronin Developer]

Word has it from the 2000 Borland Developer's Conference, that Kylix was going to be Delphi on Linux. Next in the queue was going to be C++Builder on Linux. During that same conference, the core C++ compiler had been built and demonstrated compiling and running natively on Linux. That was two years ago.

Since that time, we have seen Kylix and Kylix 2 released as well as Delphi 6 and a new C++Builder. The fundamental piece was the use of CLX to make the code cross platform between Windows and Linux. VCL code simply will not port. And, the VCL never worked cleanly between Delphi and Kylix. CLX was the answer to this.

I expect that the upcoming release will be C++Builder on Linux. That means it will have the same look and feel as C++ Builder on Windows. Yes...a GUI oriented development tool with all the wizbang designers that many of us have come to love.

I'd also like to point out that Borland made it clear that they were not out to replace GCC. Their aim (well, 2 years ago), was to make a development tool that enabled developers with a Windows background migrate to Linux and bring their application development skills to the Linux platform. There was alot of talk about whether the libraries would be link compatible with GCC. They didn't have an answer that most of us wanted to hear. But, like I said, that was two years ago.

Borland is position themselves to enable developers to enter a new market. While the MS folks are concerned about pushing .NET out the door, Borland developers will already be developing Web services and database applications for both Linux and Windows and beating their competitors to the punch.

Will these tools be an immediate big hit with Linux users? Doubt it. It takes a lot to effect a paradime shift of that magnitude. But, you will see Windows developers porting their code to Linux and opening up new markets. Eventually, the die hard people will see the advantages of using a tool like C++Builder or Kylix in a corporate setting. And, if we are really lucky, we'll see Borland making their .so's compatible with rest of the Linux community. The whole point of doing a C++ version is simply that the majority of Linux developers use that language. But, they ported Delphi over first (ala Kylix) because the majority of their customers are Delphi users.

Guess we'll all have to wait and see, eh?

RD

Borland C++...

[BuffJoe]

... will probably not be able to compile the kernel. The Linux kernel is notorious for using GNU extensions to the C language.

How many people actually use Borland C++?

[djohnsto]

I'm sure this will marked as troll, flamebait, lame, whatever, but I'm actually curious.

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.

It's Fair

[Anonymous Coward]

The Watcom Power++ IDE was the best-designed GUI for C++ developers, but it crashed every time you scratched. Borland is way ahead of MS on ease of use, but the MS optimizations are much better than Borland's. So, it's a fair product, but not without some problems. Meanwhile, it looks like it will be a long time until we can tell if gcc is improving slowly or very slowly. It gives the patient an unequaled opportunity to display their patience. What do you expect? There's not a lot of money in compilers.

Re:Oh man...

[kevinank]

Oh, I don't agree. KDE developers might flock to a better C++ compiler. And users of AMD chips might be attracted to better optimization code since gcc basically sucks there (instruction schedulers in recent gcc builds are badly dis-optimized for AMD.) Precompiled headers might be nice too, and the Borland compilers have long had a reputation for compilation speed which itself is useful.

Personally I remember liking the built in debugger and editor simplifying the compile/edit/debug cycle, so that would tend to attract me as well; in fact I was considering getting a box myself, and I rarely even have time to code in C++ any more.

Re:Market

[anandrajan]

There's always been plenty of excitement on the borland.public.kylix.non-technical newsgroup regarding native RAD C++ for linux. John Kaster (from Borland) is the guy who usually confirms or denies rumors. For a while, there was a rumor that the C++ RAD version of Kylix would be called Sylix and he squashed that rumor pretty quickly.

You can access the newsgroup here (sorry for the long URL, blame google not me)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=3C 43 71D8.51AB0544%40uk.renaultf1.com&prev=/groups%3Fnu m%3D25%26hl%3Den%26group%3Dborland.public.kylix.no n-technical%26start%3D25%26group%3Dborland.public. kylix.non-technical

Also please check out an earlier message on this topic which may have already been covered on slashdot (sorry too lazy to check at 3:15AM)

http://community.borland.com/article/0,1410,2819 8, 00.html
This one gives you an email address [e-mail] where (surprise, surprise!) you may be able to get a beta.

Commercial compilers on Linux = Good

[Lurks]

Quite a lot of this ground has been discussed in the story I submitted Does Linux Need Another Commercial Compiler? [slashdot.org]. That being about my company's consideration of porting VectorC {PC} to Linux. It'll just be provided with the Windows version.

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 [codeplay.com] looks forward to competing with Borland on Linux.

Mat Bettinson - Codeplay Ltd.

Still Free software?

[PEdelman]

So, if I compile Free code with a non-Free compiler, would people regard it still Free software? This is meant serious, not as a troll.

As for me, it would not matter very much if with which compiler a program is compiled. But maybe someone has a good opinion on this.

Re:Not necessarily....

[BlueWonder]

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. [...] But if so it would be pretty sweet, assuming you're not a Free Software zealot.

Even though I am a Free Software zealot (i.e., I wouldn't use a proprietary compiler even if it was both technically better and available at no cost :-)), I think this would be a good thing. The more compilers support gcc's extentions, the easier it'll be to have them included in the next versions of the language standards.

Twice Shy

[NReitzel]

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.

Re:Market

[tomstdenis]

"Many people argued the speed/size benefits of Watcom's DOS compilers compared to DJGPP, the (DOS port GCC)"

Many people such as? GCC optimizes just as much as Watcom [and much more than MSVC].

For example, my crypto library

http://libtomcrypt.sunsite.dk

Includes both MSVC and GCC make files. Compare the timings [ciphers] for yourself!

Re:Oh man...

[HeUnique]

Never going to happend..

Look at this: Intel released a free (for non commercial) release of their compiler (ICC)

Did you see the KDE Developers move from GCC to ICC? I didn't, and I do follow the KDE lists..

What could be is that if borland (probably) will release their command line tools free (as a beer) - then someone might build KDE binaries and will give it out as super optimized. Those will be unofficial binaries of course.

Re:Market

[Graspee_Leemoor]

Many people such as ME! Watcom c++ for dos just completely wiped the floor with djgpp (the dos port of gcc). It lost in every test made by every person ever, unless you count apps that were mostly asm anyway. Watcom's optimization was legendary. Most DOS games used Watcom. Remember the famous "DOS4GW" ? That was the default dos extender used by Watcom programs. That too helped, because it was faster than the dpmi used by djgpp.

graspee

Re:Oh man...

[Chainsaw]

Intel has got a pretty good C compiler that gives quite a speedup compared to gcc. The bad news is that it crashes or generates bad code when using C++ with templates, operator overloading and other features that are clearly non-C. Even the Linux kernel isn't 100% stable with it.

EULA

[blkros]

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 [borland.com]. 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.

The competition

[Anonymous Coward]

LCC : http://www.cs.princeton.edu/software/lcc/

GCC : http://gcc.gnu.org/

Comeau C++ : http://www.comeaucomputing.com/

Intel C++ : http://www.intel.com/software/products/compilers/c 50/linux/

KAI C++ : http://developer.intel.com/software/products/kcc/

CodeWarrior : http://www.metrowerks.com/products/linux/

SGI Pro64 : http://oss.sgi.com/projects/Pro64/

TenDRA : http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~patrykz/TenDRA/

And yeah, there will be a Vector C++ for Linux as well. http://www.codeplay.com

If you feel like it, you could take projects like SableCC and SUIF into account as well.

Good luck, Borland.