In a message dated 08-10-94, Ramiro Diaz said to Timur Tabi:

>I didn't get a
>chance to see it yet hence I'll appreciate if you can tell me what made
>you prefer IBM's v2.1 over Borland's 1.5.

I know that IBM's C++ is slower in compilation that BC++, but so what?
I'm an assembly hacker at heart, and a good optimizer is very important
to me.  IBM's compiler is better.

IBM also supports OS/2 better than Borland.  Frankly, I don't trust Borland.
They're not as bad as Corel, but it's taking them too long to add
features and fix bugs (I keep hearing about how bad the resource workshop
is) in their OS/2 compiler, but they keep cranking out newer versions of
their DOS/Windows compilers.  In short, IBM's committment to OS/2
development tools is very important to me.

Not only that, but IBM is working on a PowerPC version of their compiler.
This may be news to you, but it should come as no surprise.  What Workplace
gets released, who's compiler are you going to use?  Not Borland's,
because they won't have one.  I'll be able to switch over to IBM C++ for
the PowerPC without batting an eye.

IBM C++ was one of the first to support templates and other advanced C++
constructs, on any platform.

Also, their class library is excellent.  I haven't exactly used it, but
I have examined it, and it's slick.

In short, IBM is taking the technological lead (as far as the OS/2 world
is concerned) with its compiler products.  I feel that an investment in
IBM C++ is protected.  I don't feel the same about anything from Borland.
___
 * MR/2 * MMPM/2 MIDI Device Driver Programmer

--- Maximus/2 2.01wb