Borland C++ Now Free-as-in-Beer 458
BlueBlade writes, "Inprise, formerly known as Borland (and now merging with Corel) has released their latest compiler for free. They said the move was to show support for the open source community. You can find the full article here. " It's Free Beer though. No source code, although such a release would really show their support for the Open Source Community.
Borland Inprise (Score:1)
jeeze... (Score:4)
Ever heard of being thankful for what you get? Borland makes quality stuff, and its great to see this come out. But, CmdrTaco, your comment sounds (at least to me) resentful. Lighten up a bit, ok?
--------------------------
Undue Pushing... (Score:3)
Re:jeeze... (Score:5)
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but when you do it blows your whole leg off."
Re:So what (Score:2)
The only difference is if you buy it, you get their VCL, which is a very powerful collection of GUI and non-GUI tools.
Free...Maybe.....Easy and quick to get...NO!.. (Score:2)
Once upon a time... (Score:3)
Now, they're releasing the binaries for zero cost. It's a start, but not really a very helpful one. Yes, they seem to have learned that "Free Software" is a strength, not a weakness, but they seem to be confusing free with "free beer", not "free speech".
IMHO, this is a regrettable confusion. A blunder. Nothing to flame them over, but rather something to gently correct them for. Borland has some great brains, and if they can be tapped to their full potential, both Borland AND the Free Software community will gain.
However, zero-pricing their binaries doesn't really benefit anyone. It takes commercial companies away from genuinely Free Software, thus dividing the potential for growth, rather than multiplying it.
Still, there IS the possibility that this is but one move in a steady transition to genuine Free Software, be it BSD-ish, GPL-ish, etc. It might be best to wait a little and see.
Re:DOS version? (Score:2)
Anyone look at system requirements? (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised to see a port at some point, though given that it's owned by Corel.
Is it compatible with Visual C/C++? (Score:3)
Microsoft's compiler is the least ANSI compliant compiler I know and I can barely use the STL with it. Could I use the Borland compiler as a drop in replacement? For example I need to write DLL's to be loaded up by code compiled with Visual C/C++ and that need to link against libraries compiled with Visual C/C++. Is there any chance that I could use Borland's compiler to do this?
I've never understood how developers manage under Windows when Microsoft's compiler doesn't actually compile C++
Re:So what (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:3)
This is great! (Score:2)
It's sad to say but gcc doesn't cut it yet on Windows. IMHO, I wish that RedHat/Cygnus would direct their forces to concentrate on UNIX instead now.
And you others, stop harassing the Borland site, I can't get through at the moment.
Great, cause my school is based on an TC++ 4.5... (Score:2)
Re:Still no match for the GCC (Score:3)
To get decent speed, you need -at least- a -O2, preferably a -O6, though not all code will work correctly at that level and the optimiser can be shaky at times.
You really also need to turn off any and all debug flags, strip the binaries of symbol tables, and link to libraries which are compiled the same way as above.
(If you've a heavily optimised program linked to a library that's space-compacted, with debug flags up to it's eyebrows, you're really not going to get any decent speed out of it, no matter how good the compiler is.)
Lastly, watch those -m flags. If you aren't using maths, don't use them. -m486 will slow your code down, horribly, because of the increased amount of data it passes in each function and procedure call.
Yes, the GNU compiler -COULD- be improved, enormously. I think that a decent multi-pass compiler, with intelligent flag control, would be great. A multi-pass linker would be cool, too - I am fed up of errors due to putting library calls in the "wrong" order. It's quite capable of doing a once-through to search for symbols, and working out how to link from there.
Personally, the best compiler I've ever seen was the Oxford Computer Systems Petspeed compiler, which was a 4-pass compiler/linker. That thing generated decent code.
Re:Still no match for the GCC (Score:2)
It is always a bad thing to make a claim without a reference. When one says a compiler is slow/fast (run time) there is always a lot of context that is important. For example, floating point operations, i/o, memory management, etc.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:jeeze... (Score:2)
Eraser_
Good Stuff (Score:2)
I'm hoping the collage kids start handing in their programming assignments using Borland's C++ that way they don't get tied into this damn MS crap.
Re:Undue Pushing... (Score:2)
Look, I said it's a "wish", not a "demand"(bitch). I also mentioned right away that I do not think all software needs to be GPLed. The only reason I'd like to see the source is that the compiler I wrote was really broken.
The truth is, No matter what software is it, Someone in the community is interested in it, and naturally would wish for a source code. It does not necesarily mean anything "political." It has something to do with the natural curiousity of a science person. It also has something to do with porting it to other platform. I agree that "demanding" for a GPL is bad, but there's nothing wrong with "wishing" for one.
By the same token, you are "demanding" us not to be curious, instead of "wishing" us to give software company a break. Plus you have completely underestimated
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free...Maybe.....Easy and quick to get...NO!.. (Score:2)
My major question is, how are they supporting the open source community, without opening the source?!? Not intended as a flame, but it seems like they're helping people who [can't|won't] [purchase|afford] it. Last I checked, there were more people OUTside of the OSS community who fit that bill. Not saying that a lot of us don't need more money, we all do. But traditionally, the cheapskates are those who AREN'T involved in the "giving back" process that so many of us tend to involve ourselves in.
Anyway, this post wasn't worth the time it took to post it, but oh well...
Really useful (Score:2)
All of this is really academic, though, because g++ on Win32 is, well, not particularly useful for real development. Its support for the win32 API is very, very much a work in progress. It compiles as fast as mud, and it's really meant to me used within the cygwin environment.
On Unix/Linux, I rarely use anything else. But on Windows, I'll use Borland from here on out.
--JRZ
Re:And? (Score:2)
Can somebody explain... (Score:2)
I'd say so far that it doesn't do any good to OSS. Except eventy\ually draw some people away from real OSS IDE (like kdevelop,
Re:jeeze... (Score:3)
And it supports open source in pretty much the same way handing an artist some good, free paints supports art. Who cares if the compiler doesn't have the source? It's what you make with it that matters.
-Patrick Stewart
An expected price adjustment for compiler tech (Score:2)
What's most interesting about this announcement is that it underscores how little a compiler means to software development these days. Yes, obviously you need a compiler to produce executable code. But a bare compiler has no value to many people unless it comes with a RAD environment or generally does something above and beyond generating code.
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re:Undue Pushing... (Score:2)
There are a bunch of examples in the past where companies released a no-cost piece of software to get people to use it. Once it's popular, they started charging. "Oh, you want a version which works with Windows X? You have to pay for that." Or they start restricting the license more and more each version, so that fewer people actually get it for free.
If it's open source, you can depend on it. If you pay for it, the company has at least some economic reason to listen to your complaints. If you got it for free, you're completely at their mercy.
Re:Bypass the 4step signup (Score:2)
----
I'm not stoned, I just chugged a pack of fUN dIP!
Re:Not good for Linux (Score:2)
--
Peace,
Lord Omlette
AOL IM: jeanlucpikachu
Re:Free Borland C++ 5.5 is WORTHLESS (Score:2)
Re:Anyone look at system requirements? (Score:2)
Part of the (somewhat lengthy, but polite and thorough) download process is a questionnaire about intended development. If enough people state that they intend to do Linux-only development, then a week or so down the line a few POLITE emails drift in wondering about a Linux port, then I think it'll probably happen.
Re:Can somebody explain... (Score:3)
When you grab this compiler, you can use it, but you don't have to. You can use either MS, GNU tools, and lots of others..
With the IE example - you HAVE to install it. Try for example to install Visual Studio without any version of Internet Explorer. You can't. period. Why? because MS decided that in order to use Visual studio you'll have to use THEIR browser. Why can't it install only the essential parts (online help reader etc..) and the other functions will run on another browser? because MS doesn't want to.
Now do u understand why people like this news about BC++ and NOT IE?
Re:All the "Whining": My 2c (Score:2)
In this case, Borland is giving away something genuinely useful. Students and hobbyists are going to flock to Borland C++, rather than paying $100 for the non-optimizing personal edition of Visual C++ or paying $500 for the real thing. You can moan about it not being open source and so on, but Borland C++ is enabling people to develop applications for Windows without additional cost up front, hardware aside. This may be all someone with the next great idea needs to write a wonderful application or utility or game. And in all honesty BC++ is much, much less crusty than gcc. gcc is usable, but nobody will give it more than that.
reverse moderator psychology (Score:4)
From now on, whenever I'm a moderator, I'll specifically look for people who think they can buy a few karma points by making themselves look like martyrs for their opinions and I will moderate them down, like they supposedly expect to be anyway.
If you have an insightful comment to make, the least you can do is let it get moderated up by virtue of its thoughtfulness, without having to resort to begging.
Re:Free Borland C++ 5.5 is WORTHLESS (Score:2)
It's perfectly possible to work on complex software projects without a debugger, it's just more difficult.
Case in point: at a place I worked recently, I had to work with a large legacy system written in QuickBasic (the compiling version of QBasic). I would guess there was a total of several hundred thousand lines of code. QuickBasic is a poor language anyway, and to top it all off, I couldn't use the debugger because it wouldn't work when the programs were linked with nonstandard libraries, which all of the programs were. I made extensive modifications to some programs, and I did all my debugging by sticking PRINT statements in the code. So it's possible.
Also, I think it's funny that you say "No need to get personal, friend", and then "whatever little high school programming assignment you have". I guess that's not getting personal?
Re:What the HELL? (Score:2)
Re:Undue Pushing... (Score:2)
The largest gain from open source is the control it gives you as a programmer. If a library on my system has a flaky API, I can check the source. It once took days for me to find a bug in OSF's call for wordexp (a POSIX function), whereas finding how glibc did it took about 20 minutes, and most of that was downloading and untarring. Free as in free beer is nice, but free as in free speech is being able to take control of your own machine in as much or as little detail as you like. There is an enormous difference between the value of the two to anyone who has ever used source to get at the root of a bug.
So, whereas some people may shout it from the mountains when a compiler is made free as in beer, people who use the source will only think of it as a very small gain, primarily for PR value, and will say - "Show me your source!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Undue Pushing... (Score:2)
This mostly seems to be because of people linking free (beer) with the GPL's definition of freedom. They're two different concepts.
Inprise have decided here that the best option for them is to release this free. Whatever the reason for it, it's not that they're dumping the program and so might as well GPL it. They're just saying that this makes sense NOW.
Remember here that this is the basis for a nice product they're still pushing. C++ builder. Not as nice as Delphi IMHO, but....
This is mostly (I suspect) a decision to get some PR off a product they don't really use by itself any more. The push is behind C++ Builder, JBuilder and Delphi, so this, while still the base compiler for C++ Builder, wasn't doing anything on its own. Might as well do something nice and get some good PR while you're there.
Greg
Re:Undue Pushing... (Score:3)
They're not directly making money off this any more, but it's still used (according to the press release) as the base compiler for C++ Builder. Which they at least try and make money from, though I haven't seen the balance sheets and can't say whether they actually do
If they don't think it's anything special, they might consider opening the source under a particular license - but why would people work on it rather than on GCC?
On the other hand if they consider it special then it's a potential selling point for C++ Builder. But if they open the source then they're leaving the oppportunity for a rival product to use their code. Philosophically nice but it could hurt their sales if (for example) Visual C++ could now use each and every trick that C++ Builder's compiler does to produce nice code as well as their own, unknown tricks. At which point they've done something which reduces the profitability of the company and that isn't legal for a publically traded company in the UK so I can't see the US investors looking that kindly on it.
I can see why you want it, I just don't think it's all that realistic.
Greg
Re:Doh! (Score:2)
Re:Is it compatible with Visual C/C++? (Score:2)
CodeWarrior 5.3 is very ANSI/ISO compliant infact they boast that they have the tighest compliance. Earlier versions of the Windows IDE did lagg behind the Mac IDE but now they are pretty much in par with each other.
Plus they are a better deal. The Academic version is only $120 and its not crippled other than with the liscense. You can't make commercial apps with it but thats fine with me. If I want to make a commercial app I will buy the full version. Plus the acidemic version includes both the Mac and Windows IDE's while the Full version is only one IDE but it can still cross compile and remote debug.
Karrots
Re:Anyone look at system requirements? (Score:5)
Borland is planning to release Kylix which includes (to my understanding) Delphi on Linux as well as C++ Builder for Linux.
If anyone has used their tools, you will find that they provide all the source code to the libraries (mainly the VCL). They don't include the source to the compilers or other tools (they need to make money somehow, right? Isn't that what for-profit corporations do?).
Nobody is forcing you to download the BCC. Nor, are they forcing you to visit their site. The fact that you went there says you are interested.
The only reasons I can think that they want to know who is downloading their compiler (i.e registration) and filling in the survey are:
1) Knowing if their marketing campaign is having an effect.
2) Being able to notify registered users when Kylix becomes available.
In a previous post, somebody griped about the BCC compiler stating that the Cygnus tools (even MS's own were preferable to BCC). The only downside I ever experienced using BCC was that many libraries in the Windows world simply would not link to it. But, I experienced the same problem with MS's and Symmantec's compilers as well. At least in the Linux world, there is a standard on how these libraries should be built. The Borland compilers should be compatible with other libraries on Linux. No?
So, why does everyone keep knocking Inprise/Borland for their approach of giving away the product?
Personally, it seems to me that too many people don't want to look at the good that can come from this. They expect everything to be free or a threat to their purist, unrealistic, view of the world. That's great for hobbiests. It doesn't make money. Or, perhaps they are staunch MS supporters who don't want to see Inprise/Borland succeed? Just read their posts and decide for yourself.
Product abandonment (Score:3)
Re:It's Linux that needs a different compiler (Score:2)
Do you really expect someone else, who finds gcc works just fine for his/her needs, to sit down and write a compiler for you in the name of open computing just so you can have additional compiler choices?
There are two types of projects in the Free Software world: those that are genuinely important to somebody, and those that never happen. It seems that Slashdot attracts a lot of posts about the latter type, probably because it's easier to post "I want a ..." than it is to post "Here's my patch to ..." Wankers.
--TM, thinking it's time to fork the community and let the lusers rot
Probally because of IP (Score:5)
Malda: Not everyone has to go opensource. I think you need a little action with the clue-by-four.
Re:debugger? (Score:2)
If you just created a piece of code and want to test it out, just break main, call my_func(100, "foo") and examine the result. A big time saver on large projects where setting up the conditions to test a piece of code is tedious.
Re:jeeze... (Score:5)
Re:And what _did_ we get? (Score:2)
Re:Still no match for the GCC (Score:2)
The most impressive compilers that I've ever seen would have to be either the Alpha or the SGI Fortran compiler. Interprocedural optimizations, code profiling, basic blow movement, full alias analysis, etc. *Very* good.
Re:Still no match for the GCC (Score:2)
Isn't the idea of Linux and Open Source to make a better software/OS world through contribution to the common code? Without source code, Inprise/Borland has given nothing. They could speed the Linux bandwagon they hope to make money from by making GCC work better and then bring us a C++ Builder for GCC/Linux! Make tons of money on the RAD functionality, but DO NOT break the ubiquity and portability of code that compiles under GCC.
Unless there is truly free source, free software is useless to the progress of GNU/Linux. This is the reason you are not switching to Solaris 8.
I made a decision some time ago to drop my *BSD efforts and join GNU/Linux because of this very issue. Linux has let me down numerous times where *BSD never would, but the BSD license ("you may not separate the ego from the code") would also never produce the wonderful things we often take for granted: GNOME/KDE,IPchains,gPhoto, The GIMP,etc.
As for the letdowns, they will be gone soon. Linux is the fastest growing OS on the planet. It will surely supercede all others as long as we all contribute. Get it Corel/Inprise/Borland?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:All the "Whining": My 2c (Score:4)
* Crippleware/nagware/software that times out after X days-- "But see, it's helping them until it expires! They can use it to create Open Source applications for 30 days!"
* Inexpensive software ("But see, it's cheap.. we're not greedy, so we're helping the Open Source community!")
It's called shareware. And the press release doesn't say anything about being "the pillars of the open source community". They simply stated that a free ANSI C++ compiler is now available for the Open Source community to do as they wish. Nothing more, nothing less.
You might scoff at this, but note that there *is* no other freely available native compiler for ANSI C++ available for the Win32 platform. That's the significance of Borland's announcement. ANSI C++ is a very difficult animal to tame. Why are we all moaning? C'mon, cut them some slack, they're already making a Linux version of their software, no reason why C++ on their Linux beast won't compile on their Win32 toy.
We'll all reap the benefits, damnit.
Re:slightly Off-Topic... (Score:2)
Re:So what (Score:2)
Is this just a princple thing or would you really dive into several hundred thousand lines of source code and start "fixing" the compiler? You'd really rather do that than write apps with it? You couldn't do one without the other?
How can I thank them? (Score:2)
This has bugged me a couple of time in the past too, so a more general solution would be nice.
Re:So what (Score:2)
gcc doesn't "include a debugger" (Score:3)
Also, I beg of people NOT to e-mail anyone at Borland to complain about this. It is a good gesture on their part to release the compiler free, there's no need to complain that they didn't release everything free.
Chris Hagar
Re:You have it all wrong! (Score:2)
The way it stands right now, people who include something to the effect of "I'll get moderated down for saying this" almost invariably get moderated up, regardless of the actual quality of the comment. This degrades from the quality of discussion for two reasons:
Also, in case you care, in the past when I've been a moderator I've moderated down EXTREMELY infrequently. The only posts I've EVER moderated down are "first posters" and blatant trolls. I wouldn't moderate a post that actually says something lower than 1. What I WOULD moderate down are posts that have gotten moderated up to 3 or 4 simply because they knew how to manipulate moderators' feelings.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually Borland is quite superior to GCC (Score:4)
>lot more active development of the product.
What have you been sniffing?
I did some comparisions with my program compiled
with GCC and with Borland C++ 5.5
I had normal optimization with Borland and
highest optimization with GCC. I also compiled
with Visual Age for C++ with normal Optimization.
Size with GCC : 2.82M
Size with Borland : 1.18M
Size with IBM : 1.25M
The code with Borland is also slightly faster
than that of IBM and GCC code, GCC having
the slowest code and Borland the fastest.
My only complaint now that I figured out which
flags to use is that it doesn't support long long.
>With Borland 5.5 you only have Corel/Inprise
>developing it. Borland claims their 5.5 compiles
>code faster than GCC and their product does have
>precompiled headers.
All true. It is fast, it will be great to use
for Linux if it is just as good as the winblows
version. It'll be great when the C++ builder
and Delphi comes out as well.
Re:Bypass the 4step signup (Score:2)
Probably because it requires cookies, or javascript, or something...
Re:Still no match for the GCC (Score:2)
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
The end of an epoch (Score:2)
Unfortunately Borland suffered also the fate of many of the companies of its generation - it got caught under the web of the yuppie enterpeneurs. The result of this takeover was Philip Kahn (and several other) leaving Borland. The company turned into a more "solid-proprietary" and less "venturous-dissident" face. Meanwhile, the quality of its products dropped drastically. Things ended up by customers leaving massively Borland. The company ended with a small group of C++ fans and a segment of its past Pascal clients.
It is interesting to note that among my known circles of "second-generation" Linuxists (1994-1996) I note a lot of past Borland fans (me one). For some it was a no-return ticket. For others it was a middle world between Windows and Linux. However they were only a fraction of the huge mass of "unemployed" programmers. Most Borlandists turned to other professions. Today most are either highly specialized users or sysadmins. 90% of the people didn't managed to "go Windows".
So it seems that this is the last hit on the coffin... Borland is dead. Curiously when a normal Pascal compiler has finally appeared on Linux. That follows Borland philosophy with only one exception. It's not a book, it's GPL.
What's it good for? (Score:2)
--
grappler
Hands up everyone who doesn't get open source (Score:5)
prerelease for linux vers. - sm411341414301 (Score:2)
I have a different slant for this article. Borland have stated they intend to release delphi to linux. And if you look at the results of the JUL99 survey [borland.com], the first Q/A they asked was 1. which language ared you primarily interested in developing in on linux? Of course the answer was C/C++. So what better way to pave for delphi (and release of cpp builder?) to linux than to allow users (windows developers - their primary target) to download a free (but older) compiler to get used to.
What does perplex me is the later question, 3.The particular development tool I would most like to see for Linux is - (sic), the answer was a race between c/c++ with rad (cpp builder) and a new IDE that works with existing linux tools. Maybe thats what the Jbuilder gui was about?
Go have a look at the results of the survey to gain a better idea of where borland is heading...cpp builder on kde/gnome using native gui (or wine) that's most likely not open sourced as long as it's high quality and costing between US$100 - US$300.
Re:Bypass the 4step signup (Score:2)
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
Short Answer: No (Score:2)
This is (along with Delphi) Borland's (they have dropped the Inprise name in the merger with Corel) flagship product. The full C++ Builder 5.5 only came out a month or so ago, and this is the compiler for it.
Some comments on Borland & Open Source (Score:3)
Firstly, they aren't Inprise any more - they are dropping that name (at last!) in the merger with Corel. Infact, you could actually buy the Inprise sign on Ebay - it might still be there.
Secondly, Borland is considering open-sourceing more of its stuff. They are already releasing Interbase under the MPL (see www.interbase.com [interbase.com]) and in a recent interview in the Linux Journal, Dale Fuller said they were considering what they shoudl open source with the release of Kylix (Delphi/C++ Builder for Linux). This MAY EVEN INCLUDE THE VCL. That woudl be really, really cool.
Re:Free Borland C++ 5.5 is WORTHLESS (Score:2)
It's perfectly possible to work on complex software projects without a debugger, it's just more difficult.
Debugging without a debugger is impossible for anything besides the smallest projects. One thing you are missing is the call stack. It is impossible to emulate this with any degree of usefulness with printf's. Second, you lose the ability to call functions at any point, which needs to be done to test the current state of your objects. Third, you lose tracepoints (which are 100% impossible to do without a debugger). Fourth, you lose threading ability and the ability to step between threads independently. Fifth, you cannot do variable substituion. Sixth, yuo cannot look at and/or step through assembly output. Seventh, printf's are useless after the fact (after the program crashes). Eighth, ....
Even you for things which you CAN emulate (such as stepping through and examining variables), they are HORRIBLY ineffecient using printf's, since in order to do anything new, you need to re-compile and re-link, each time, where as in the debugger you just need to add your thing (which you can do without even restarting execution). Plus, printf's add all sorts of nasty and ugly code everywhere (yes, yes, #ifdef DEBUG, but that path of execution is often not updated and kept current).
Though printf's are useful in SOME circumstances (such as printing out complex trees of objects), I humbly suggest that if you are seriously using printf's, that you haven't mastered your debugger yet, and have a lot more to learn about it.
What it includes (Score:2)
It appears to be enough to build software from source. It appears not to be enough to do serious software development (e.g., no debugger).
What's announced is a Windows-only compiler. (It might work with Wine, but what's the point?)
this isn't so bad... (Score:2)
Yes, Borland clearly wants people to buy their C++ Builder product. What's so evil about that? They're a business. They're trying to make money.
On the other hand, they have released a free compiler for Windows. Many of you imply this is useless. On the contrary, I think this is perhaps more useful than a Linux version of the compiler.
Why? Because Linux has gcc. gcc is a reasonably ANSI/ISO compliant C++ compiler. It includes a debugger, linker, etc. It's very useful. Borland C++, with no debugger, for Linux would not be particularly useful.
On the other hand, Windows has limited options for free C++ compilers. There is DJGPP, a DOS port of GNU tools. And then there's Cygwin. Cygwin is nice, but it's a large download and it's a complete set of tools. If all you want to do is compile C++ code, it's overkill. Especially since you have to distribute some large Cygwin DLLs.
Borland claims that this free compiler can support Open Source software. Most of you seem to disagree. I don't.
Imagine this scenario: someone writes open-source C++ software, using standard-compliant code and nothing operating-system specific. (It could even have a GUI, using something like GLUT or FLTK). They write this code on Linux. Compile it with gcc. Debug with gdb. Perhaps use one of the Linux IDEs.
Currently, this code would be difficult to use under Windows. You could compile with Cygwin, but this is overkill. Now, there's a new option. Compile the code with Borland's C++ compiler.
The lack of a debugger doesn't necessarily hurt this software. And this compiler does make it easier to write cross-platform, open-source software for Windows and Linux.
Go ahead and flame me. Say it's useless to write code that runs on Windows, or that it's supporting Micro$oft's evil empire. I disagree. Many people use Windows. Open-source software for these people isn't necessarily a bad thing. If they become interested enough in it, they can switch to Linux. And don't knock Borland for giving away free software without source. It's not the best thing we could have hoped for, true. But on the other hand, they are planning to develop their compiler software for Linux. Let's not change their minds by flaming them for trying to help out developers.
Re:Fuller said they are want to open source compil (Score:2)
--
Re:Actually Borland is quite superior to GCC (Score:2)
--
Don't Care, just want compiler (Score:3)
For the truely paranoid, though, Corel now has a way to make a proprietary Linux distribution. They still have to open the source to their mods, but it doesn't do you much good if it will only compile with Borland's proprietary compiler.
Re:IDEs are for wimps (Score:2)
shareware Zeus. Both good products.
Why? (Score:2)
This is insightful? This is moronic.
Re:Actually Borland is quite superior to GCC (Score:2)
Given that, it follows that GCC should whip BCC on Linux much like BCC whips GCC on Win32, the X-factor here being the fact that Borland can take optimization techniques from GCC, but not vice-versa. Of course doing so may put them in violation of the GPL, but copyright law never made sense wrt software to begin with.
Direct Download URL (Score:2)
--
MFC is crap (Score:2)
There are other class libraries out there that are actually worthwhile (e.g. Borland's VCL, hint hint). There's gotta be a GTk port, too -- or, as you say, you can write your own. It's not monumentally difficult if you're willing to blow off portability, and if you're at all competent it won't take but a few weeks (I've done it), which you can amortize over the remaining lifetime of the Win32 API. For your time investment, you'll free yourself from the misery of wrestling with MFC's bizarre limitations and idiotic design flaws. A C++ library should be written (not to mention designed) by people who know C++ and OOP reasonably well. MFC wasn't. The Win32 C API was at least designed by people who knew their way around the paradigm they were working with. It's not perfect, but it's acceptable.
Now that I mention it, Win32 programming in C with just the API isn't anybody's worst nightmare. It's ugly and painful because GUI's really demand OOP, but I've done it and honestly it's not much worse than MFC.
Is there any GPL'd MFC code out there at all? I'm inclined to doubt that, unless Al Stevens uses the GPL. Stevens isn't doing anything real crucial anyway.
Link libs != DLL's (Score:3)
The link libs are incompatible. That's what you use implib for. It generates Borland-friendly link libs from arbitrary DLL's. MSVC doesn't have an analagous utility (BTW MSVC 5 is violently unable to cope with MSVC 6 link libs if they've got a $debug section, ha ha -- found that out the hard way, installed MSVC 6, and wasted a day and a half fixing the damage to my system from the "upgrade"). 32-bit windows DLL's are goddamn PE files, they all have the same header and the same sections and blah blah blah. You're talking out your ass.
If you don't like the struct alignment, change it. Compilers can do that.
For anybody in the audience not familiar with dynamic linking in Win32: The library is called foobar.dll, and it comes with a smaller file called foobar.lib, which is what you "link" to, and which contains basically the names of the exported functions and not much else. The compiler groks all this.
Good move, should have included the IDE & VCL (Score:2)
That said, I think this is a great move, but not good enough. The really powerful stuff in BC++ (and Delphi, which I prefer) is the IDE/VCL combination. Those component libraries (and the third party stuff available) blow competing software out of the water. Borland should have made their "Standard" (read Student) edition free, with IDE & VCL, rather than just the compiler. In the very least, it should be a LOT cheaper than it is.
I can't imagine going for the command line version of BC++; command lines are a long time ago for those evil coder sith-lords like myself who've gone over to the dark side. Still, it might help the students out there (those with over-sized consciences, anyway). That would be good for Borland/Inprise/Whatever they are now, because more people might get into their compilers.
Hopefully they'll give more stuff away for free. Anyone noticed that you can get older versions of BC++ & Delphi free on computer magazine CDROMs, complete with IDE and VCL?
I had a friend doing a TAFE course (technical college in Oz, below Undergraduate level) in Delphi, when Delphi 4 was out. They were teaching Delphi 2, which is no help to anyone. Why? Because they couldn't afford new versions of the compiler. Not many people took that course, because it sucked. The VB courses were full, of course, because the TAFE had the latest...
You really shouldn't charge teaching institutions for your compilers/ide/etc. The graduates convince their bosses to buy masses of the products they learnt on. Crazy.
(Hey, and who were those fools crying about how the comiler is useless sans debugger? Good coders, oh yeah...)
Did they fix the template problems in MSVC 6? (Score:2)
Like for example a member template function of a template class was totally beyond the comprehension of v5. Uh, what I mean is this: You've got a class template, and it's got a member function which is a template unto itself, with its own type parameter(s) unrelated to those of the class. GCC 2.8.1 grokked that, but MSVC 5 got upset. I don't recall what BCC did. (I spent a weekend once trying stupid template tricks with those three compilers, finding a subset that would compile on all three). Also v5 couldn't seem to cope with a member template function of a normal class unless the body was defined in the class declaration. That's tolerable, I guess, but still vaguely annoying. It's also possible that this shit is supported, but I never quite figured out how to *declare* it!
Somebody's gotta get that damned name-mangling thing sorted out. What a crock.
Kinda Off Topic Re:jeeze... (Score:3)
This is why the Free Software and Open Source philosphies are so different. The Open Source philosophy, being mostly pragmatic, has the unstated opinion that just because the user probably doesn't need or want the source code, it is okay to be taken away. The Free Software philosophy beleives freedom should be granted for all its users, whether or not it is pragmatically beneficial.
Note that a philosophy is different from a community. I actually don't beleive that there are distinct Free Software and Open Source communities, per se. People who don't share in *part* of the Free Software philosophy are probably those who haven't heard of it. I mean, come on, there are no big highlines on ZDNET or CNN about the Free Software Revolution lately, are there? It seems like Linux and Open Source have stolen the hype, but that's okay. And I don't think there are any serious Free Software people who say "I actually prefer crappy software."
The free compiler from Borland represents a misunderstanding about Open Source, the other half, Free Software. I think Open Source and Free Software are two halfs of the same entity. Once they figure out that the community isn't after purely pragmatic goals, then maybe they will change the license to something more free?
Note: I am not attacking you or anyone else. Please don't be hostile in your reply.
Re:What the HELL? (Score:2)
Are you sure of that? (Score:2)
The full C++ Builder 5.5 only came out a month or so ago, and this is the compiler for it.
Are you sure of that? I really got the impression from the press release that this is the Borland C++ compiler, not the C++Builder compiler.
Borland has had three C/C++ compiler lines. The first was Turbo C, from the days of DOS. The next was Borland C++, a plain old C++ compiler plus IDE. No RAD or visual form designer, though. C++Builder is a compiler, IDE, and visual designer -- a C++ version of their Delphi product.
Which one is this?
Re:Anyone look at system requirements? (Score:2)
The linking issues you speak of are problems with windows not defining enough of DLL stuff for C++ DLLs to portably exist - the DLL contains the mangled name, and different compilers mangle things differently.
C++ Builder's VCL IS delightfully easy, although it involves some odd extensions and restrictions to the C++ standard. How much that matters depends on what you're doing.
Re:Is it compatible with Visual C/C++? (Score:2)
Re:IP=Intellectual Property (NT) (Score:2)
Remember that Slashdot strips out angled brackets. Therefore, to post without text, put the following VERBATIM (no < and > stuff):
<>
and it will show with no text!
Re:Kinda Off Topic Re:jeeze... (Score:2)
When did you ever have the source code to Borland C++? At what point was it taken away from you?
Probably the number one reason I won't join the ranks of the Free Software zealots is that one can never give them anything without them complaining that it wasn't enough.
--
Well they kinda release source (Score:3)
Those are not free(beer) though. And the source for the compilers is still closed....
Re:All the "Whining": My 2c (Score:2)
> *is* no other freely available native
> compiler for ANSI C++ available for the Win32
> platform
http://www.xraylith.wisc.edu/~khan/software/gnu
Hmmm. (Score:2)
member templates are supported as long as they are inlined.
See Appendix I; I'm not certain that they're doing the right thing, but then again I'm not certain that I'm doing the right thing either
Namespaces support has been much improved in version 6.
I didn't know there was anything wrong with it before. I don't use namespaces much, though, aside from the STL
I still insist that VC6 is fairly ANSI compliant. I'd say it's on par with GCC 2.95
That's good news about GCC (do they have namespaces yet?); I'd thought that MSVC was pretty close to the mark in most respects. I mean, yadda yadda I hate Microsoft and all that, but I don't get all that emotional about compilers unless something specific that I need is broken. The things that really annoy me about MSVC 6 are GUI problems, extra annoyance popups and whatnot.
-----------------------------------------------
Appendix I
Here's what I'm talking about with member templates of templates. Note that this code won't compile, and note also that I'm not ruling out a bug between my own two ears:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <string.h>
template <class T>
class foo {
public:
// Here's the member:
template< class T2 >
void traverse( const T2 &r2, bool (* callback)( const T &r, const T2 &r2 ) )
{
for ( int i = 0; i <= size; ++i )
if ( ! (*callback)( data[i], r2 ) )
break;
}
T * data;
int size;
};
bool callback( const char &c, const char * const &fmt )
{
printf( fmt, c );
return true;
}
int main()
{
foo< char > f;
char * crap = "vogon";
f.data = crap;
f.size = strlen( crap ) - 1;
// All this over-specific crap is an attempt to get the compiler to admit
// that I'm doing what I'm doing; but it insists that T2 is ambiguous:
// it thinks it could be either const char * or const char *const &
// FWIW I'm seeing the same error with MSVC 5. I'm not certain whether it
// *should* be considered ambiguous or not. I'm also not so sure about
// casting to a reference
// dance on a const reference? You have a right to secure counsel from a
// language lawyer.
const char *fmt = "char: '%c'\n";
const char * const &fmtr = fmt;
f.traverse( (const char * const &)fmtr, callback );
return 0;
}
Re:gcc doesn't "include a debugger" (Score:2)
Chris Hagar
Re:Probally because of IP (Score:2)
The VCL isn't Open Source(TM) (Score:2)
It is nice that you have some access to the source, though.