What's new

Borland C++ Builder vs. Micro$oft Visual C++

Borland C++ Builder vs. Micro$oft Visual C++

  • Borland C++ Builder

    Votes: 4 11.4%
  • M$ Visual C++

    Votes: 20 57.1%
  • g++

    Votes: 8 22.9%
  • Something Else

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't use C++

    Votes: 1 2.9%
  • I don't program

    Votes: 2 5.7%

  • Total voters
    35

nephalim

Psychic Vampire
Borland C++ Builder vs. Micro$oft Visual C++ vs. G++

What's your preference?

What's better for making an emulator?

God I hate M$...i'd rather use straight assembly I think :geek:

Is using assembly in an emulator inevitable? What's a good way to learn it?
 
Last edited:
OP
nephalim

nephalim

Psychic Vampire
g++? I've never heard of it, can someone give me the basic details? I'll see if i'm allowed to add it to the poll.

Update: I can't edit the poll. Everyone who voted "something else" is voting for g++, so far, so if a mod can fix that, it'd be appreciated.
 

ScottJC

At your service, dood!
I use delphi;

Mainly because its a bit like Visualbasic but it is faster and the exe's can run without runtimes, oh and its gui stuff is way better too...

also like pascal:)

no idea how good it is for emulation though, i know that one of the best nes emus was programmed in it...
 

tooie

New member
I do not know how good the Microsoft Visual C compiler is .. I know there are plenty of issues .. especially with C++, but I have not seen a better debugger .. it is excellent, I use it all the time at work with bug hunting ..
 

SculleatR

Ninphin Author
I use Borland C++Builder;
Uses C/C++, is fast and you don't need runtime librarys.

Sayargh: Don't you know? Nemu was written until v0.7A
in Delphi. :)
 

Hacktarux

Emulator Developer
Moderator
SculleatR said:
I use Borland C++Builder;
Uses C/C++, is fast and you don't need runtime librarys.

Sayargh: Don't you know? Nemu was written until v0.7A
in Delphi. :)

Huh, bc++ builder may have many qualities but it's not fast. In all major compilers, it builds by far the slower binaries.
Then vc.net and gcc 3.2 are almost equals in speed (gcc 3.2 is far more standard compliant). Finally icc (intel c++ compiler) is the faster compiler but it only works for x86. This compiler is able to produce simd code automatically when it's needed...

The fact that nemu's gui was written in delphi is irevelant because the core is a dynarec and the goal of a dynarec is to produce asm code. Maybe 95% of the time is spent in asm code produced by nemu, you can't really take this as an example to show how good is a compiler.
 

SculleatR

Ninphin Author
Hacktarux said:
Huh, bc++ builder may have many qualities but it's not fast. In all major compilers, it builds by far the slower binaries.
Then vc.net and gcc 3.2 are almost equals in speed (gcc 3.2 is far more standard compliant). Finally icc (intel c++ compiler) is the faster compiler but it only works for x86. This compiler is able to produce simd code automatically when it's needed...

The fact that nemu's gui was written in delphi is irevelant because the core is a dynarec and the goal of a dynarec is to produce asm code. Maybe 95% of the time is spent in asm code produced by nemu, you can't really take this as an example to show how good is a compiler.

Are you sure? behinds to version... BCB6 is very fast. Maybe
I will port a N64 emu to BCB and test its speed if you say its
that slow. :). When I have some time. :)

We will see. ;)
 

icepir8

Moderator
nephalim said:
g++? I've never heard of it, can someone give me the basic details? I'll see if i'm allowed to add it to the poll.

Update: I can't edit the poll. Everyone who voted "something else" is voting for g++, so far, so if a mod can fix that, it'd be appreciated.

Done. :D
 

SculleatR

Ninphin Author
Hacktarux: There is no need to port it... I tested already it
with some emulators wich are written in bcb. Also,
already bcb4 had more features than msvc++6.
And bcb's speed is already equal to msvc++ in
execution. (readed this at borland homepage).
Afaik Microsoft used their best programmers to
develop. vc++.
 
Last edited:

Hacktarux

Emulator Developer
Moderator
SculleatR said:
Hacktarux: There is no need to port it... I tested already it
with some emulators wich are written in bcb. Also,
already bcb4 had more features than msvc++6.
And bcb's speed is already equal to msvc++ in
execution. (readed this at borland homepage).

lol :D
 

Hacktarux

Emulator Developer
Moderator
SculleatR,

firstly, you can't believe what companies are saying about their products... What would you think about a company saying: our compiler is crap, it's slow, outdated but if you still want to use it, it costs 3000€ thx

As for the free compiler argument, it only prove your lack of informations... BCB++ was fast a few years ago but now, it's very outdated. On the other hand it's still very fast to compile a binary. For example you can compile something in 5 seconds while you need more than one minute in all the others compilers. The drawback is that the compiled binary will be far slower. But for companies it can still be good to be able to compile things fast (anyone who has already compiled kde on linux would agree that it's surely easier to program such big software if you have a fast compiler : even if the result has poor performances, it's still cool to test things quickly). Borland has played much on these numbers in the past to hide the poor performances of their compiler.

Now why gcc (or g++ it's the same thing) can be so good and still being free ? For many reasons. Firstly, it has always been updated regularly since many years. Secondly, it's supported by hardware and software companies. For example a company develop a new processor or develop hardware that use a specific processor. They want to have a compiler for their hardware that doesn't cost too much. Rather than creating a new one from scratch, they take gcc and they add the new things they need. Gcc license require them to give their changes back to the community. That's how gcc evolve. Then companies oftenly give money to support devloppement of these compilers because they are interested in the performances of this compiler. One of the best example is AMD. They are supporting gcc because they want to have x86-64 support in it. And they are also giving money to gcc main team to support them, because they also need non processor specifics optimizations to be improved.
 

SculleatR

Ninphin Author
Surely every company shows only positive things about their
products :). And IF bcb is slower, I don't care, because its
speed is very fast though :saint:. One question, is g++ only
for linux avaible?
 

SculleatR

Ninphin Author
Erm.... We went to another topic :doh: . Nephalim
was asking wich Compiler/IDE is the best to code an emu.

Nephalim:

-Windows:If you program in c/c++ I'd use bcb. And making your gui is also easy & fast.

-For Linux you could use g++ (i don't know how it is, but so far
everyone says its good) or Kylix3 (wich supports c++ too).

ps: I see no point using visual c++. ;)
 
OP
nephalim

nephalim

Psychic Vampire
The problem I see with using Gnu C++ is how the hell do you make windows based programs? It's not worth the frustration to build them by hand, even if you are using libraries, IMO.
 

blight

New member
SculleatR said:
Surely every company shows only positive things about their
products :). And IF bcb is slower, I don't care, because its
speed is very fast though :saint:. One question, is g++ only
for linux avaible?

i think you can compile gcc for any posix compatible OS (and for windows using cygwin i guess)... you can also use it as a cross-compiler... it supports many target platforms... like AVR micro controllers, MIPS (N64), x86, ppc, ......

btw: gideon/kdevelop-3 is a nice IDE for linux IMO
 

Top