C++ Builder or Visual Studio [closed]

问题:

Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.

---

Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.

Closed 9 months ago.

I own a software development company. We develop software for other companies who brand under their name/titles. And we also have a couple self branded titles in the Accounting/ERP market. Our accounting software is roughly 60% of our business and written in C++ Builder.

Those who know, realize C++ Builder has had a very rocky road in changing hands from Borland, to CodeGear, to Embarcadero and possibly a few times in between. C++ Builder has screwed us a number of times on our accounting software. The QuickReports was notoriously buggy, Their XML build description is not tightly coupled to the GUI causing builds to not work -- generally buggy interface.

Over the past 8 years we've steadily made inroads to remove our reliance on the VCL and buggy components however, some 3rd party VCL components are just not easily replaceable still. We use a GRID package from Developer Express - great product.

I'm just about at a crossroads and with the latest version of C++ Builder XE on the market I'm having a hard time justifying the price when you look at the crappy history of this product.

So I'm looking for advice or steps anyone else followed who might be in similar situation and successfully made the switch to Visual Studio.

We've slowly moved most of our application to wxWidgets except for the Developer Express tools. And we've written our own TSQL abstraction we can port as well.

Any thoughts or suggestions? Have you moved your project to Visual Studio or have you played around with the new Builder XE to find many of its previous shortcomings now gone?

Looking for "been there, done that" advice.

回答1:

Moving to wxWidgets has its advantages one of them being that you will not be bound to an IDE like C++Builder or Visual Studio. C++ Builder has had several problems, its main strength being the VCL framework, which in my oppinion is still among the best GUI frameworks around for C++. The problem ofcourse being that it requires C++ Builder, which to put it mildly does have some problems with stability and compiler performance.

However Visual Studio is not the ultimate IDE, the latest version is at best buggy, and many of the RAD tools you're given by C++ Builder simply do not exist in Visual C++ (unless you are willing to go for the .net languages).

I can perfectly well understand your wish to make your code less dependant on C++ Builder, to tell you the truth I kind of doubt it will continue to be around for long myself. However from what it sounds like in your post, most of your development really relies on rapid developed applications, and in the C++ universe C++ Builder is one of the best tools around for this particular requirement.

Personally I never really thought of C++ as the best solution for Rapid Developed Windows GUI Applications, perhaps your focus shouldn't be on finding a different IDE, but on finding a more appropriate language, I would suggest Delphi, by using Delphi you will be able to compile you're existing c++ builder projects, and even reuse your existing VCL components.

Delphi will - I trust - be around for longer than C++ Builder, either in the form of Delphi, or in the form of Lazarus (IDE for freepascal) which is even cross platform and gives support for 64 bit development.

If however a change of language is not an option, I would stick with C++ Builder for now, but not upgrading to the XE version, which I simply do not think is justified by the price tag. (Given ofcourse you already work on a relatively new version).

回答2:

Visual Studio is not really comparable to C++ Builder.

Yes they are both C++ compilers but:

1. Visual Studio is only RAD when using .NET languages
2. MFC is 'semi-rad' but does not come close to ease of use of VCL
3. Visual Studio compiler is better at producing optimized code, but C++ Builder uses Clang which is pretty good
4. Visual Studio and C++Builder are both standards compliant (CB using Clang-based compilers)
5. C++ Builder comes with Boost
6. C++ Builder XE is much better than previous versions (not including Builder C++ 6.0)
7. You can't beat the RAD tools in C++ Builder for C++ development, nothing comes close

The differences in compilers probably won't hurt you too much for non VCL dependent code. I have a DLL that I compile for clients under VC6, VS2008 and Builder 2010/XE. I have had to toss in a few #ifdefs, but most of them are actually for VC6.

The biggest recommendation I can make is DO NOT MOVE TO MFC, thats where the pain starts.

Think about the training for developers as well. Your developers will become significantly slower at producing working code while learning the idiosyncrasies of a new compiler.

With all that said, when I was given a choice for a client between moving to VS2008/2010 or Builder C++ for a new product, I picked Builder, just for the RAD IDE.

Good luck.

Updated for C++Builder 10.2 (2017):

1. 32 bit and 64 bit Windows both use Clang/LLVM (as do iOS and Android)
2. 32 bit and 64 bit Windows both use Boost 1.55
3. 10.2 is very stable, getting better every release

This still comes up on Google searches, so updated again for Berlin 10.1:

1. 32 bit and 64 bit code now uses CLANG/LLVM for Windows
2. 32 bit code for OS X still uses old compiler
3. Android and iOS compiles use CLANG/LLVM

回答3:

If you are sticking with C++ and expect the same kind of IDE in Visual Studio for C++ that RAD Studio provides you'll be shocked.

To be honest, C++Builder has never been a bad GUI development environment for C++. It's likely the best the has ever been for C++. Why? Because you can take advantage of all the great Delphi components.

There is no substitute for ExpressQuantumGrid™ Suite for C++ in Visual Studio.

Most of the serious complaints about C++Builder have been often centred on it's compliance with standards like the the STL and Boost.

I don't think that Embarcadero will give up on supporting C++Builder. The issues have usually been with the way the Delphi guys (3rd party) have coded stuff. Honestly I only recall one release of DevExpress's stuff being an issue.

Short and sweet: if you want to use C++ and some sort of RAD/GUI thing stick with C++Builder.

回答4:

We upgraded from C++Builder 6 to XE a year ago. Very happy with XE. The move to UnicodeString was not too difficult. We also converted all our BDE code to BDExpress (DBX). That took a long time and lots of re-write, but was well worth it. The thing to remember is that neither is perfect. As the saying goes, The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence. If you want development efficiency, use C++Builder and the VCL. If you want very long term security, or easily find programmers, then Visual Studio. My opinion: Keep what you like and replace what you don't. For example, keep C++Builder and replace QuickReport. BTW, if you've made a decision, please let us know.

回答5:

C++ Builder PM here.

C++ Builder has some specific strengths:

• It is great for UI design. Either with the VCL (native Windows controls) or FMX (cross-platform, often native controls too if you need). Visual C++ doesn't come anywhere near, and MFC is still designing UIs the way you did in 1995.

• It's focused on cross-platform. Visual C++ is advertising it, but C++Builder provides the 'full stack': not just compiling, but full libraries, UI, everything. VC++ is cross-platform until you need something that isn't.

• It's widely used by people needing database work, or other "enterprise"y items, mostly because the database libraries (FireDAC) are very nicely architected and support a lot of databases.

• It uses Clang for all platforms apart form macOS, which still has an old compiler. It's also heading towards updating to C++17.

• It has features like Live Preview (design your app, see the app live on a plugged-in device like your phone) which seem to have heavily inspired certain recent MS features ;) Don't worry, Visual Studio, we love you :) So in many areas it actually leads, especially for x-plat development.

Weaknesses:

• The IDE only runs on Windows. You can deploy anywhere and debug on anything, but the IDE is Windows.

• It's C++11 only, although heading towards C++17. MacOS is (gasp) C++98. It's on the roadmap. You can rely on it being up to date in time.

• Code completion and code insight are weaker than Visual C++. Working on it.

• It has a reputation as buggy, which is something actively being worked on in recent releases and a personal drive of mine to eliminate. But a reputation is hard to shed.

回答6:

We are in a slow move to VS2008 and wxWidgets. For every component that can be purchased for C++ Builder (Developer Express, etc) our plans are to hire someone to build that one piece or hire the component maker to build a wxWidget component for us.

C++ Builder is the best way to program visually on windows at the moment though. However, no x64bit support and no mac, linux support. Supposedly they are going to build a crossx version... how long can we wait?

回答7:

I've started as C++ client-side engineer for Windows. I agree with comment about that MFC is pretty bad. In several of my projects we've written our own UI engines with XML-driven templates instead of using MFC so graphic designers can play with UI without need of software engineers.

In my personal opinion C#.Net is the best for Windows UI development. IDE is great. Coding UI in C++ requires way too much effort. You can still keep pieces of C++ that require high performance.

PS. Just noticed this on wiki page for VCL. ".NET is modeled after VCL, since one of the main architects of the first Delphi versions, Anders Heijlsberg, went to Microsoft and was one of the main architects of NET there"

回答8:

Most answers here mix compilers, IDE and library (and question has important subtext: how to choose environment for business/GUI applications). Question and answers mix Visual Studio languages and project types: C++ with poor support to GUI, C# with wonderful ecosystem etc... (Basic, F# etc) all under Visual Studio umbrella.

GUI libraries:

MFC is library, really quite ancient and low productive. Its low level wrapper over *.RES and WM_Envents. Probably still cannot be compiled without MS C++ (and maybe licence prohibit this)

VCL is library most important to Borland/Enbecaro philosophy and market share in one area: build GUI applications. Seems be good use portable opensurce GUI libraries, but almost all have not so good support in clickable IDE

IDE:

Personal feeling seems best answer. Agree, only producer IDE has optimal constrol over own GUI compoments. Many independent IDE is cited here, I will be short.

Compiler:

Brland C++ compiler many year was far from c++ standards (cant compile main stream c++ code like boost). I believe many goals are contradictory: coexistence with Object Pascal code or C++ standards.

To tell the true: most project from C++ Builder worlds don't require to use highly "hackers" code like boost and similar, personally I treat Borland/Embecareo C++ language as independent language partially based on C++ (partially on VCL). General this world is closed (more and more), no drivers, no compatible libraries, no modern network protocols etc.

My opinion: MS C++ compilers (in the past and now) better support standards.

I was (maybe good) Borland C++ programmer. Now I use C#/WinForms Visual Studio (sometimes, rare Java SWT or Swing) and Microsoft C++ to low volume C/C++ non-GUI projects

Final words: are You limited to C++ syntax, or can switch? I yes, switch to C#. If must be C++ and high productive GUI, pay (more and more) to Embecadero

回答9:

I've worked in C++ builder 2006, 2009, XE6 and RS10.

I would recommend converting your projects out of it. I've had numerous issues over many years, such as the environment crashing and many other quirky behavior. Furthermore, if you do need help with something, the user community is next to non existent, so you normally have to wait 24 hours and hope that Remy responds to you :) Or try to read through delphi code and translate it to C++ (yes their delphi environment is more popular... nothing like object oriented pascal...).

No matter what environment you convert it to, it probably won't be as clean or as easy as you'd like it. So knowing there would be a lot of work, so I suggest looking at your long term strategy.

I personally would recommend migrating to java and using SWT (https://www.eclipse.org/swt/), if you need a desktop application. I would also recommend sticking to open source libraries with friendly licenses, so you don't have to worry about paying money every year and allows you to scale your business. If you don't need a client system, then I would still recommend java, as it does the full stack and is very powerful. The java community from my experience tends to have sharper people (for the most part) with clean answers. I've seen a bunch of hackish things that use .Net :)

You did mention Visual Studio, if you can't do java, then I would recommend C# as your next best alternative. But then you still have to pay MicroSoft for licenses, and also deal with the user group.

回答10:

What @casablanca said, but you should also consider very good alternatives, if you say that you're not satisfied with the programs you're using now:

1. Eclipse (CDT): very good and complete product
2. NetBeans: often compared to eclipse
3. Code::Blocks: simpler, but often recommended, not that great of a build system integration I believe, but ightly integrated with wxWidgets
4. QtCreator: my personal favorite (clean and fast and works with git), but currently only in use for a personal project and small applications, maybe not ideal for wxWidgets, although I don't use Qt either :)

One word of warning: the Visual Studio Debugger is regarded as "as good as it gets", but you pay for it. 1-4 above are all free, and highly acclaimed products.

回答11:

This means that the release of Visual Studio 2010 creates a new question: Does it make sense to upgrade Visual Studio even if you're not upgrading to .NET 4? The answer is "yes," and for a lot of reasons. But if you're going to .NET 4 you'll find a lot of support in Visual Studio 2010.

As soon as you start Visual Studio 2010 you'll notice that the Start Page is now more useful than the File menu (see Figure 1). The Start Page still provides access to project templates, but the rest of the page now provides organized access to training resources for the major .NET technologies.

Once you open a file you'll find that, thanks to Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), there's more visual feedback in the editing window. For instance, if you click on a variable name, all uses of that variable name are highlighted. This feature isn't limited to variables -- clicking on a method header automatically highlights all the return clauses and the end of the method. But this extra highlighting isn't without a downside. When debugging, for instance, I sometimes lost the current line because its highlighting was overridden by the highlighting added for the currently selected item. aztec tattoos

回答12:

I hate to say this, but my own company is at this same cross-roads. We have been using C++Builder for many years (never upgraded beyond v6), and our management people have recently pulled the trigger to make the switch to Visual Studio moving forward :-( I do not think we will be porting our existing C++Builder apps to VC++ anytime soon, as that would be a major re-write, but our new products in the future will be in VC++/.NET now.