[HN Gopher] C++Builder 11 Community Edition
___________________________________________________________________
C++Builder 11 Community Edition
Author : DaOne256
Score : 87 points
Date : 2023-09-15 09:34 UTC (13 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.embarcadero.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.embarcadero.com)
| blinkingled wrote:
| Borland's C++ compiler was _fast_. And I mean eye wateringly fast
| on crappy pre-AMD64 hardware. I wonder if it supports modern C++
| today and is still faster than other compilers. (If I am not
| mistaken this new edition is a offshoot of that?)
|
| (Yeah I am not downloading the "Community" edition if I have to
| provide my name address and phone number. Really if your product
| needs mindshare and you offer community edition the least you can
| do is make it easily downloadable.)
| qwerty456127 wrote:
| It took Microsoft some generations to stoppe requiring you to
| sign-in to use community edition after the trial period ends.
| Perhaps Borland will fix this in some years as well.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Far as I can tell, it still does. Nothing more annoying when
| chasing a bug than being forced to look up a password I
| haven't used for several months in order to use the debugger.
| kwanbix wrote:
| You don't have an email for spam? And put any phone number.
| [deleted]
| blinkingled wrote:
| I keep forgetting my spam email address/passwords lol I have
| a Google voice number for when I need to use it on forms but
| I have seen some websites don't accept it - there's ways to
| determine that it's VOIP it seems.
| ndiddy wrote:
| I've downloaded one of their past community editions, their
| sales team will call and email you. They back off when you tell
| them you're not evaluating the product for your work, but it's
| still kind of annoying.
| blinkingled wrote:
| Yeah I figured as much
| kwanbix wrote:
| So you give them your real email, and not a for-all-the-
| registration-crap email? And you also give them your real
| phone number?
| notreallymy wrote:
| Not only that. He knew the project name I created!
| pjmlp wrote:
| C++17, using their clang fork.
| rob74 wrote:
| Fast _for a C++ compiler_... but still worlds away from the
| Delphi compiler!
| yazzku wrote:
| This kind of email+phone registration was common in the 90s and
| earlier. Oh, wait, it's 2023.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It is perfectly common in 2023 for the kind of clients that
| usually pay for development software tools.
| zorgmonkey wrote:
| I've never used it, but if memory serves they are, like many
| other companies, using a fork clang. So I expect it will be
| about as fast if not slower then clang.
| cfn wrote:
| You can only use this edition if you make less than 5000 USD
| and/or have less than 5 devs. If you do, licenses start at 1000
| USD per year. Assuming a commercial app, of course.
| keepamovin wrote:
| How does this compare to developing in Obj-C or Swift for iOS?
| Is this like a cross-platform thing?
| nurettin wrote:
| The "community edition" version of delphi had no visual editor,
| no way to build a bpl and it was 32bit only. I don't know thos
| c++11 compiler's features, it isn't immediately apparent in the
| mobile site.
| matt3210 wrote:
| Why this instead of clion?
| pjmlp wrote:
| VB like development experience for C++.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The only VB like development experience for C++.
|
| Microsoft completely messed up the XAML / C++/CX development
| experience with internal politics, only to have the team
| responsible for C++/WinRT going on to have fun in Rust/WinRT,
| leaving the former in maintenance state.
| germandiago wrote:
| How good is C++ Builder? Ever tried? I Saw It a couple of years
| ago and it looked good actually but noone seems to use it.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Like I described, is like using VB for the GUI stuff, coupled
| with the C++ capabilities.
|
| Additionally it has a symbiotic relationship with Delphi,
| similarly to how C# and C++/CLI are integrated, only much
| better.
|
| Nowadays the compiler backend is based in clang.
| deaddodo wrote:
| Imagine classic Visual C++ with it's form builder (versus the
| modern WinRT stuff) and hooks...it's much like that. I would
| say the experience is a little smoother. I do remember the
| version I used to use had issues with the form builder to
| where getting exactly what you wanted was finicky (the
| rendered/preview version was never quite what the compiled
| version ended up as).
| pjmlp wrote:
| If only VC++ ever had a form builder for C++ like C++
| Builder has been doing for 30 years.
| jbandela1 wrote:
| Visual C++ 1.0 had AppStudio
|
| https://ia800108.us.archive.org/5/items/MicrosoftVisualSt
| udi...
| pjmlp wrote:
| Visual editors for Windows resources in MFC aren't the
| same as C++ Builder VB like capabilities.
| deaddodo wrote:
| https://softelvdm.com/Vault/softelvdm.com/documentation/S
| ftM...
| pjmlp wrote:
| Resource editor for dialogs isn't the same as the C++
| Builder experience.
| deaddodo wrote:
| Whatever you say.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| ...is correct. Visual C++ has a visual resource editor,
| but this isn't what C++ Builder does. C++ Builder edits
| live objects, you declare a class with its properties
| (this needs extensions to the C++ language) and during
| design time the object is instantiated and edited
| visually through the property editor ("object
| inspector"). This works for both visual (buttons,
| controls, etc) and non-visual objects.
|
| The difference between what VC++ does and what C++
| Builder (and Delphi) does is _massive_ and at a very
| fundamental level.
| georgehaake wrote:
| Historically a great tool along with Delphi, with poor
| subsequent management/ownership since the very early 2000's.
| gavinray wrote:
| > Come in thread
|
| > Ctrl+F "pjmlp"
|
| I was not disappointed.
| sirwhinesalot wrote:
| I can definitely understand them wanting to drop custom C++
| extensions, but it's a shame they can't figure out how to
| provide a nice development experience for their newer UI
| platforms. If only .NET actually works reasonably well with it
| (and there's a huge managed<->native overhead) maybe it should
| have just been WPF 2.0?
|
| Not that I would use WinUI anyway, microsoft cannot be trusted
| with UI frameworks anymore.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The custom C++ extensions argument is a very bad lame excuse,
| it isn't as if WinRT was ever going to be cross platform, or
| not every single C and C++ compiler used in production (not
| toy compilers) doesn't have their own set of extensions
| anyway.
|
| I also don't consider anything related to WinUI/UWP
| trustworthy for production development, and I used to
| advocate for it.
|
| Stuff like how .NET Native, C++/CX => C++/WinRT transition,
| UWP => WinUI were managed, is how they lost most of us that
| really liked WinRT.
| sirwhinesalot wrote:
| All of that is fair, it's not like C++/CX was all that
| different from needing to use Obj-C on macOS. I'm just
| saying I can accept their reasoning. Using only standard
| C++ is better in a vacuum, but only if nothing is lost in
| the transition.
|
| May I ask what your plan is regarding UI at this moment?
| I've given up and gone the web route (with Avalonia on my
| pocket in case my sanity gets dangerously low).
| pjmlp wrote:
| Similar plan, in 2019 I went back going to distributed
| systems/Web, where Microsoft technologies are one among
| many others that get used on a polyglot agency, the usual
| "A jack of all trades is a master of none, but often
| times better than a master of one.".
|
| For doing Windows stuff, I would rather advocate for
| Win32, Forms/WPF.
|
| In regards to C++ stuff, either C++ Builder if it fits
| the budget, or Qt.
|
| It is quite tragic that even MFC has a better development
| story than WinUI/C++.
| avodonosov wrote:
| How about .NET MAUI?
| pjmlp wrote:
| They decided to rewrite Xamarin.Forms, it uses WinUI on
| Windows, Catalyst on macOS, and VS4Mac is now officially
| dead and one has to use VSCode instead, and they are all
| into this Blazor Hybrid as well, with Web views.
|
| Take your own conclusions on its future.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I really, really, am baffled at how difficult it seems to
| have a GUI builder tool that outputs a description of the
| UI that a program can just load (or a compiler transform
| into a structure inside the program) as objects the program
| can use, handling events and pushing presentation
| information into it.
|
| That was pretty much what VB did, with immense success.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| The problem is that you need some form of RTTI that
| allows object serialization. This is basically what
| Delphi does: the forms, controls, etc you are editing are
| not fake stand-ins, they are the class instances you are
| working with. The object inspector shows you the actual
| instance properties as defined in code and you are
| editing live objects - the only difference is that those
| objects have a "design mode" flag so they can ignore any
| user input. When you save a form, it serializes the
| objects on disk. That serialization data is stored on the
| executable and when you run the program, the form is
| deserialized and the object instances are what were
| stored.
|
| There is almost no UI-specific functionality there, the
| same functionality can be used to serialize _any_ type of
| object and you can even implement your own serialization
| logic for your objects. The language 's RTII allows for
| declaring properties (think like C# properties, though
| really C# properties were inspired by Delphi properties
| as the latter had them since the original Delphi 1.0 for
| Windows 3.1) as part of a class and has support for
| metaclasses (classes are instances themselves of a
| metaclass that describes the class), including virtual
| constructors (since classes are instances they have their
| own VMT) which allows for constructing class instances on
| the fly by passing a class type in a function.
|
| The thing is, C++ does not have this sort of
| functionality. You can implement your own RTTI, as
| several projects do (many game engines do that for
| example), but it is often clunky (e.g. relies on macros,
| duplicating info, manual registration and/or external
| tools that parse the code and generate the RTTI
| boilerplate).
|
| C++ Builder did it because it extended C++ to add that
| functionality in a way that is ABI compatible with Delphi
| - and is how it can use VCL (which is written in Delphi).
| dleslie wrote:
| It was easy to do in Win95 through to Win2k because the
| interface was consistent throughout. Then they started
| changing the interface guidelines, and toolkit, for every
| major release of windows; and sometimes several times
| during the life of a major release.
| rbanffy wrote:
| This is also baffling. A button, a text input, a
| checkbox, a drop list, a combo - they all have a
| "default" look in every Windows version since 2.0 (1
| didn't have the drop list, IIRC). It shouldn't be
| difficult to make an abstract description of a dialog box
| look at home with a new version of the OS and, yet,
| digging through Windows 10's built-in apps you sometimes
| find things that you recognize as skinned versions of
| Windows NT 4 dialogs. That they look like NT 4 dialogs
| with the Windows 7 skin applied is disconcerting, at
| best.
| wolpoli wrote:
| The Office team used to pioneer (hard-code) the look and
| feel for the UI, and then the Windows team goes and
| implement the look and feel system wide in a generic way.
| Then somewhere along the way, the Windows team decided to
| hard-code the look and feel that you could now do an
| archeological dig through decades of UI.
| jahnu wrote:
| Same. The previous company I worked for we went all in on
| UWP for our Windows SDK.
|
| An almost complete waste of time as Microsoft failed to
| deliver on their promises.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It is baffling to watch community calls and have them
| talk about rewrites and dropped tooling features as if it
| wasn't a big deal, being asked for the n-th time since
| Windows 8.
| ok123456 wrote:
| Just use MFC 4.2 imho.
| pjmlp wrote:
| As noted in some of my comments, the way C++/WinRT have
| messed up the development with total disrespect for
| paying customers is incredible.
|
| To come back to your point, the aging MFC has better
| Visual Studio tooling than C++/WinRT will ever have,
| specially now after being deprecated.
|
| I would have fired the whole team responsible for
| C++/WinRT.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| honestly using plain win32api or mfc is the most stable
| bet on the planet
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Thanks to Wine, it is probably the most stable way to
| make a Linux GUI program as well.
| rbanffy wrote:
| COBOL, CICS and 3270 interfaces. That's where the action
| isn't, which is great if you want APIs that remain stable
| for decades.
| sproketboy wrote:
| [dead]
| coliveira wrote:
| The main problem with Borland C++ is that it is still a 32bit
| compiler.
| kwanbix wrote:
| "C++Builder includes compilers for Win32, Win64 and iOS"
|
| https://www.embarcadero.com/free-tools/ccompiler
| deaddodo wrote:
| They say right on the release announcement that they have a
| clang-based compiler and that the system supports 64-bit
| binaries.
| Narishma wrote:
| This is C++ Builder, not Borland C++.
| peterhull90 wrote:
| Borland C++ is a 32-bit compiler, I believe the latest version
| is 5.5 and it came out in about 2000.
|
| There is a newer version from Embarcadero, 7.20 from 2016[1].
|
| The compiler in C++Builder is more modern and it will target
| 64-bit for Windows at least.[0]
|
| [0]:
| https://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Alexandria/en/C%2B...
|
| [1]: https://www.embarcadero.com/free-tools/ccompiler
| pjmlp wrote:
| Which is why there is a new clang based compiler now.
| DaOne256 wrote:
| See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37520504
| phendrenad2 wrote:
| I understand why there isn't a Mac version, but it's still a bit
| disappointing.
| marcodiego wrote:
| My main problem with delphi: it is "too proprietary". It was a
| very productive IDE in the 90's or early 2000's but lost their
| path and never recovered.
|
| Some new versions broke compatibility with previous version's
| components. There was the case where you paid a good amount of
| money on some proprietary components and they simply wouldn't
| work in the next version: you were imprisoned in an obsolete IDE.
| By not being multi-platform (I heard it improved lately) you
| could only use it with/for win32 so it lost servers, embedded,
| cloud and mobile. By not being open-source nobody could improve
| it.
|
| Then it had to compete with "native tools". Whoever develops for
| windows wouldn't quit ms' tools to use it, whoever develops for
| mac wouldn't quit apple's tools to use it, whoever develops for
| android wouldn't quit google's tools to use it, whoever develops
| for linux was mostly ignored after kylix.
|
| Note that I didn't even mentioned price and license.
|
| They improved it later, I heard. But seems more like the old case
| of too little too late. Most successful programming languages
| today are open source and multi-platform. Delphi was dependent on
| win32 for too long and it still is "too proprietary". You do the
| world a favor by porting your project to lazarus.
| msh wrote:
| I think it was C# with winforms that broke the last oppotunity
| delphi had.
| anta40 wrote:
| I don't mind trying Delphi again since they support mobile
| targets (Android & iOS). Too bad the IDE itself only runs on
| Windows...
| georgehaake wrote:
| Delphi 7, that was a lovely vintage...
| codewritinfool wrote:
| Delphi 7 was / is fantastic. Soon after that, they went .NET
| and the wheels came off.
| notpushkin wrote:
| Doesn't Lazarus address at least some of these concerns? (I
| don't think it's a drop in replacement though.)
|
| https://www.lazarus-ide.org/
| deaddodo wrote:
| Mostly, although Lazarus has an incompatible ABI (LCLs vs
| VCLs). So legacy projects relient on third-party components
| don't benefit from it.
| [deleted]
| set_of_integer wrote:
| [flagged]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-09-15 23:01 UTC)