Author Topic: Improvement - Comparison with Borland C++ Builder 6 (BCB6)  (Read 16838 times)

Offline Curieux

  • Single posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • Soft.Translator.free.fr
Re: Improvement - Comparison with Borland C++ Builder 6 (BCB6)
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2008, 09:38:10 pm »
stahta01:
Quote
From your lack of submitting patches can I assume you have no plans to submit patches in the future?
Well, as you can read in my posts, my intention in this thread is to discuss about design decisions about C::B. Decisions take place before implementation; I cannot tell you what I could program before knowing what to program precisely. No need to do assumptions.

To all:

For the rest, there are two kinds of replies: participating to a reflection, or doing something else.
Personally, I am interested in replies proposing constructive things, in the theme of this thread: suggestions about the overall design of C::B.

Design aspects can be, for example:
- Integration of different frameworks by default or not. Which ? How ? From setup or after install ? Using help files and how ?
- Additional possibilities by plugins, by integration ? A mix of both, and how ?
- Participation of users. What opinion can be taken into account, and how ? Can different opinions and groups lead to forks, or distributions (internal or external) ?
- Choices about priorities. Documentation over code addition, or debugging, or new platform adaptation ? What is more efficient in a long term ?

There are many things to discuss about design.
Some are details, others are structural.
Good decisions can only be taken after a wide discussion, reflection and synthesis. Otherwise, I see no future.
Constructive replies, or nothing.

Offline stahta01

  • Lives here!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7135
    • My Best Post
Re: Improvement - Comparison with Borland C++ Builder 6 (BCB6)
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2008, 01:07:29 am »
Personally, I am interested in replies proposing constructive things, in the theme of this thread: suggestions about the overall design of C::B.

Are you interested in doing constructive things?

If yes, I suggest documenting the current state of Code::Blocks design.
Then, you can say I think this current design item could be improved by changing to this.

If no, I suggest finding another project to help in your way.

Tim S
C Programmer working to learn more about C++ and Git.
On Windows 7 64 bit and Windows 10 32 bit.
On Debian Stretch, compiling CB Trunk against wxWidgets 3.0.
--
When in doubt, read the CB WiKi FAQ. http://wiki.codeblocks.org

Offline MortenMacFly

  • Administrator
  • Lives here!
  • *****
  • Posts: 9614
Re: Improvement - Comparison with Borland C++ Builder 6 (BCB6)
« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2008, 10:05:54 am »
I did not expect such an aggressive reply from anybody.
This was not meant to be aggressive. I just wanted to make myself clear:

We have a forum where you can ask for help.
We have a feature request section where you can request and discuss (especially long term) features/news/designs.
We have a patch tracker where you can provide some ideas in terms of code.

As an example: Embedding the wxWidgets library into the installer is something very easy to do. Just modify out installer script accordingly and post a patch. This can be done in ~5 minutes. Instead it is being discussed here with a huge amount of man power taking into consideration that we (the devs) need to read all this, too. That is what I was referring to. And that is what I don't want to support.
Compiler logging: Settings->Compiler & Debugger->tab "Other"->Compiler logging="Full command line"
C::B Manual: http://www.codeblocks.org/docs/main_codeblocks_en.html
C::B FAQ: http://wiki.codeblocks.org/index.php?title=FAQ

Offline jomeggs

  • Multiple posting newcomer
  • *
  • Posts: 92
Re: Improvement - Comparison with Borland C++ Builder 6 (BCB6)
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2008, 06:31:21 pm »
Ehm... Back to the roots:

BCB is a good tool which I used for some years. But it has some very ugly drawbacks:

1. It's slow, even the start takes ages
2. The support in case of internal errors simply doesn't exist, maybe some patches once a year
3. It's expensive
4. It's a WINDOWS -only tool, kylix for unix was a (bad) joke :(
5. It's discontinued, the studio versions behind 6.0 aren't usable :(

CB on the other hand can be used for Windows and Linux, even MAC is supported. That is the biggest improvement for me. It is fast, as cheap as possible  :D and simple to use. There are some problems here and there, but beside this, CB is the best tool for system independent development on the marklet.

Integrated Development? Ok, that is better in BCB currently. But wxsmith is a (big) step in this direction. There is a second solution, you can use wxformbuilder für graphical interfaces. Don't forget, all is available for different operating systems. Amazing...