Like Tree1Likes
  • 1 Post By jimblumberg

borland C++ 4.52

This is a discussion on borland C++ 4.52 within the C Programming forums, part of the General Programming Boards category; I've noticed many recomendations against Borland C compilers. What about C++ 4.52? And exactly why might I not want to ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    408

    borland C++ 4.52

    I've noticed many recomendations against Borland C compilers.

    What about C++ 4.52?
    And exactly why might I not want to use it?

    I am a casual programmer, C only, no C++ (or at least not yet), and so far
    have found no problems with that compiler. I've only written a few windows32
    programs, but all works as expected.

    What kind of problems can I expect?

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Well, for one thing that's a 16 bit compiler from 1996... the code it produces WILL NOT run a 64 bit OS. It is sorely outdated and not up to even minimal modern standards. It's Fred Flintstone in the age of the Jetsons...

    If you want a decent free windows C compiler go grab a copy of Pelles C here --> smorgasbordet - Pelles C

    READ THE HELP FILE, look at the IDE... write "Hello World" ... it will take you about 3 minuts to figure out what all pullabrering is about...

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,717
    Actually Borland C++ Version 4.52 is a 32 bit program and can produce 32 bit Windows programs. This compiler is an ANSI C compiler with support for most, but not all of the C89 ISO standard. If you ever intend to get into C++ you will run into major problems, this compiler is nowhere near C++ standard compliant.

    However I would still recommend that you get a modern compiler. In my opinion you should select one of the following free compilers, Visual C express, Code::Blocks with the Mingw gcc compiler, or Pelles C, any of these compilers are C89/C90 compliant, with the latter two offering, partial to complete C99 standard compliance. Visual C does not support C99. Pelles C does not support C++ if you ever want that option, however it seems to be a very easy to use, complete C compiler, with probably the best help file.

    Jim
    CommonTater likes this.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    408
    How are the resource editors, e.g. creating menus, on those compilers?
    Borland's seems pretty nice.

    Also, what are the advantages of commercial compilers?
    Or what are the disadvantages of the free ones?
    Last edited by megafiddle; 05-21-2011 at 10:26 PM.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    9,547
    Quote Originally Posted by megafiddle View Post
    How are the resource editors, e.g. creating menus, on those compilers?
    Borland's seems pretty nice.

    Also, what are the advantages of commercial compilers?
    Or what are the disadvantages of the free ones?
    Pelles has them all... even Message Tables for system error messages. Code::Blocks has none which means MinGw has none. Gcc is just a compiler, the IDE is up to you. The big advantage of commercial compilers is not the compiler itself... it's the IDE and libraries. Even Microsoft gives away their C++ compiler in an unlimited and uncrippled state but you pay through the nose for the IDE. The disadvantage of free compilers (often hidden in "real programmers use notepad" machismo) again is the IDE where you definately get what you pay for.

    I've looked at them all at one time or another. If you're doing windows development in C-99 as opposed to C++, in my opinion Pelles C is the way to go. I've been using it since 2004 and I'm pretty happy with it. The best part is a tie between the price and the help file... free and excellent... tough choice to make.

    GCC and MinGw are pretty good compilers but no IDE... or one of the less than complete free ones.
    MSVC++ which is supplied free with the Windows SDK is the compiler windows is built with... but no IDE.
    MSVS free versions are not bad, but no resource tools.
    MSVS commercial versions are better only by the completness of the IDE. (and is that worth $700??)

    The problem with Borland's compiler is it's age. It's pre-standards and you really do sabotage yourself learning on it. A lot of the stuff it does is totally non-portable and you end up having to "unlearn" C++ only re-learn it on standards based compilers. Not everyone can do it... And there's the age of them... outdated libraries for win95, etc.

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    408
    I will try Pelles then.

    Thanks to all.

    By the way, would that have been a C Programming or Windows Programming topic?

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-03-2006, 04:48 PM
  2. Borland 5.02
    By Noobie in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-12-2003, 07:54 PM
  3. Borland C++ 5.01 lib
    By Magma in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2003, 12:59 PM
  4. Borland C++ v.5 & Borland Turbo C++ 4.5
    By Unregistered in forum C Programming
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-21-2002, 03:30 AM
  5. Borland and VC++ have it
    By ginoitalo in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-22-2002, 06:06 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21