JF>  -=> Quoting Steve Hier to all <=-
JF> 
JF>  SH> Help -- I'm a "Borland die-hard", but lately I'm
loosing faith in
JF>  SH> them -- Can someone give me an  HONEST/FAIR comparison
between BC 4.0 /
JF>  SH> WatCOM v10.0? 
JF> 
JF> Well, Watcom builds for OS/2.  Borland doesn't.
JF> 
JF> As far as the project management goes, Watcom supports a veritable
JF> flood of platforms, from 16-bit DOS to 16/32/32s Windows, 16 and 32
JF> bit OS/2 apps, and Netware NLM's.  Apparantly you can build multiple
JF> targets for multiple platforms from the same source.

I just saw this and thought I'd put my two cents in. I removed the
Borland OS/2 compiler from my hd. I replaced it with the WATCOM
compiler. I have no regrets.

That said there are some points in favour of Borland. The IDE, at
least for the DOS/Windows 4.0, is really convenient to use. Also, for
version 4.0 again, there seems to be more adherence to the current
ANSI/ISO C++ draught. (I assume someone will jump on me for writing
that!)

I will give two examples. BC++ includes a string class ala ANSI,
WATCOM does not. Since this class, unlike many container classes
(including the WATCOM String class), is set to be standard and it is
very well designed, there is no reason not to use it. I miss it when I
use the WATCOM compiler. The WATCOM compiler does not have as complete
a set of ANSI standard exception classes. The Borland compiler includes
the classes xmsg, xalloc, etc.

However, from everything I've read, in the trade journals and on this
and other BBS's, if you want good code, go WATCOM! It is generally
smaller and faster.

IN the end, WATCOM will more than likely include all the ANSI/ISO C++
library classes with their compiler, and will, hopefully, improve
their, not all that bad OS/2 IDE.

___
 X KWQ/2 1.2e X This tagline stolen by KWQ Mail/2.

--- Maximus/2 2.01