I really don't feel like I have to justify my answer more than I already did jlou. If anyone agrees they surely will pick from where I left since I made it perfectly clear my experience with Borland was very limited. I thought that would work as a good disclaimer. Obviously not.
Regardless, sticking to Visual Studio 2003 is a bad option. Payed or not. It's been replaced by 2005 and you can't expect Microsoft to provide any support for 2003 for much longer.
I'm done with this thread.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Like I said before, that's fine. I'm just trying to get more information out there for the OP. I haven't heard of a good reason to spend money on a switch to Borland. Personally, I expect 2003 to be in widespread use for at least a few more years, especially considering how many people still use 6.0. So that's where I'd make my decision.Originally Posted by Mario F.
