Qt-interest Archive, March 2002
QT vs C++ Builder
Message 1 in thread
Hi !
I've begun developing a GUI in QT but I discovered Builder C++ and now I'm
wavering betwwen the two of them.
Does anybody know both programs and help me in my choice ?
In particular, I'd like to know if C++ is easy to learn, as I've already begun
learning QT since a long time now.
Thanks !
Cecile Goepfer
Message 2 in thread
I used C++ Builder (the Borland Product) a few years ago. It was a nice
toolkit at the time, but it was also only for the windows platform. I
like QT in part because it is similar to C++ builder, but, in my
opinion, more powerful, multi-platform, and more customizable. In
particular, I really like the flexibility of signals and slots in QT vs
the standard C++ callback model. I don't know the state of C++ builder
these days, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend QT.
-Arno Granados
cecile.goepfer@free.fr wrote:
>
> Hi !
>
> I've begun developing a GUI in QT but I discovered Builder C++ and now I'm
> wavering betwwen the two of them.
> Does anybody know both programs and help me in my choice ?
> In particular, I'd like to know if C++ is easy to learn, as I've already begun
> learning QT since a long time now.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Cecile Goepfer
>
> --
> List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
Message 3 in thread
I currently have to use C++ Builder right now at work. I am using v5.0. It
has a pretty easy to use, drag-and-drop interface for building dialog and
such and works for most basic GUIs. However, IMHO, their components
(Widget's, in QT lingo) are seriously lacking. I can't use their
drag-and-drop GUI any more because I find that I have to sub-class just
about every component that I use in order to give it the functionality that
I need. So, what this boils down to is, it is basically just another C++
IDE. This leaves the next horrific detail about C++ Builder; the
documentation. Again, IMHO, I believe a pack of grade school kids randomly
choosing words in no particular order could probably, accidentally choose a
more coherent layout for the help. It is a real PITA to find anything in
the help and there is not much out in the world as far as community support
except for http://community.borland.com. Most of the documentation you will
find on their components will be for Delphi, which is not so bad as it is
easily converted.
After all of that, there may be some good news. I am currently upgrading to
their newest version; 6.0. This is supposed to have much more powerful and
better written components, greatly improved documentation and even
cross-platform support. Borland is making a big push to be the one stop for
all platforms. Unfortunately, I won't receive my upgrade until the end of
the week so I can not verify any of these claims for you yet. ;( If you
like, email me off-channel and I could let you know if v6.0 is worth the
effort. IMHO, QT wins hands down and it will continue to be my widget of
choice for personal use for many moons to come.
Marcos
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com
[mailto:owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com]On Behalf Of Arno Granados
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:01 AM
To: qt-interest@trolltech.com
Subject: Re: QT vs C++ Builder
I used C++ Builder (the Borland Product) a few years ago. It was a nice
toolkit at the time, but it was also only for the windows platform. I
like QT in part because it is similar to C++ builder, but, in my
opinion, more powerful, multi-platform, and more customizable. In
particular, I really like the flexibility of signals and slots in QT vs
the standard C++ callback model. I don't know the state of C++ builder
these days, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend QT.
-Arno Granados
cecile.goepfer@free.fr wrote:
>
> Hi !
>
> I've begun developing a GUI in QT but I discovered Builder C++ and now I'm
> wavering betwwen the two of them.
> Does anybody know both programs and help me in my choice ?
> In particular, I'd like to know if C++ is easy to learn, as I've already
begun
> learning QT since a long time now.
>
> Thanks !
>
> Cecile Goepfer
>
> --
> List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 4 in thread
We binned C++Builder and Delphi before switching to Qt.
In order to get anything merely acceptable from C++Builder, we needed to
use both Delphi and C++Builder; Delphi is great for building components,
C++Builder is a C++ compiler which springboards off the Delphi classes.
We endured great misery installing off-the-shelf components for Delphi
and C++Builder and getting them to work in our environment. We
purchased Raize Components, ExpressBars, ABC, Orpheus, Essentials,
bundles of other commercial offerings, lots of shareware stuff
(CoolControls and the like) to try to get our apps to look and feel
good. When a new version of C++Builder or Delphi came out, we got stung
for upgrade fees, with providers seeing a new release of
Delphi/C++Builder as a cash cow. Even Borland sees it that way (have
you SEEN their v6 prices? Get real!) I persevered all the way from
Delphi 1 and C++Builder 1 through Delphi 5 and C++Builder 5; then I gave
them up as Borland went out to lunch.
In the end it was just too much hassle, even for a two-programmer team
to install all the necessary components on a machine, to get things to
build, to work around bugs in everything (just look at the number of
patches for the Borland products, their size, and the number of releases
of components); we needed to ship sources and build instructions to
licenced customers for them to rebuild our environments, which
invariable failed. I'd hate to be a component provider for any Borland
product.
Anyway, Qt isn't without problems. But it's easy to extend. Forget
Designer, it's too limited. Just write raw code. RAD environments are
for wimps, IMO, you need to be able to code. Writing all the code for a
product and not relying on a RAD environment means you know what goies
into your product.
-- Paul.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marcos Mello [mailto:mmello@mello1.com]
> Sent: 12 March 2002 15:36
> To: agranados@cs.autometric.com; qt-interest@trolltech.com
> Subject: RE: QT vs C++ Builder
>
>
> I currently have to use C++ Builder right now at work. I am
> using v5.0. It has a pretty easy to use, drag-and-drop
> interface for building dialog and such and works for most
> basic GUIs. However, IMHO, their components (Widget's, in QT
> lingo) are seriously lacking. I can't use their
> drag-and-drop GUI any more because I find that I have to
> sub-class just about every component that I use in order to
> give it the functionality that I need. So, what this boils
> down to is, it is basically just another C++ IDE. This
> leaves the next horrific detail about C++ Builder; the
> documentation. Again, IMHO, I believe a pack of grade school
> kids randomly choosing words in no particular order could
> probably, accidentally choose a more coherent layout for the
> help. It is a real PITA to find anything in the help and
> there is not much out in the world as far as community
> support except for http://community.borland.com. Most of the
> documentation you will find on their components will be for
> Delphi, which is not so bad as it is easily converted. After
> all of that, there may be some good news. I am currently
> upgrading to their newest version; 6.0. This is supposed to
> have much more powerful and better written components,
> greatly improved documentation and even cross-platform
> support. Borland is making a big push to be the one stop for
> all platforms. Unfortunately, I won't receive my upgrade
> until the end of the week so I can not verify any of these
> claims for you yet. ;( If you like, email me off-channel
> and I could let you know if v6.0 is worth the effort. IMHO,
> QT wins hands down and it will continue to be my widget of
> choice for personal use for many moons to come. Marcos
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com
> [mailto:owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com]On > Behalf Of Arno
> Granados
> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:01 AM
> To: qt-interest@trolltech.com
> Subject: Re: QT vs C++ Builder
>
>
> I used C++ Builder (the Borland Product) a few years ago. It
> was a nice toolkit at the time, but it was also only for the
> windows platform. I like QT in part because it is similar to
> C++ builder, but, in my opinion, more powerful,
> multi-platform, and more customizable. In particular, I
> really like the flexibility of signals and slots in QT vs the
> standard C++ callback model. I don't know the state of C++
> builder these days, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend QT.
>
> -Arno Granados
>
>
> cecile.goepfer@free.fr wrote:
> >
> > Hi !
> >
> > I've begun developing a GUI in QT but I discovered Builder
> C++ and now
> > I'm wavering betwwen the two of them. Does anybody know
> both programs
> > and help me in my choice ? In particular, I'd like to know
> if C++ is
> > easy to learn, as I've already
> begun
> > learning QT since a long time now.
> >
> > Thanks !
> >
> > Cecile Goepfer
> >
> > --
> > List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
>
> --
> List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
>
> --
> List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
>
Message 5 in thread
Paul Curtis wrote:
>
> We binned C++Builder and Delphi before switching to Qt.
>
> In order to get anything merely acceptable from C++Builder, we needed to
> use both Delphi and C++Builder; Delphi is great for building components,
> C++Builder is a C++ compiler which springboards off the Delphi classes.
Gawd, I forgot about OWL! A few years ago, Borland was talking about
making C++ Builder a "true" C++ tool. Yeah, the whole OWL/Pascal/Delphi
thing was a bear, and (for me) a seriously limiting aspect of Borland.
> Anyway, Qt isn't without problems. But it's easy to extend. Forget
> Designer, it's too limited. Just write raw code. RAD environments are
> for wimps, IMO, you need to be able to code. Writing all the code for a
> product and not relying on a RAD environment means you know what goies
> into your product.
I generally agree here, I prefer to build my stuff in raw code.
However, my company has implemented "coding standards", etc., and the
Designer does help keep everyone on the same page. Also, the designer
in version 3.0 is significantly improved over the old designer; one can
now create main window widgets, specify signals, etc.
-Arno
> -- Paul.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marcos Mello [mailto:mmello@mello1.com]
> > Sent: 12 March 2002 15:36
> > To: agranados@cs.autometric.com; qt-interest@trolltech.com
> > Subject: RE: QT vs C++ Builder
> >
> >
> > I currently have to use C++ Builder right now at work. I am
> > using v5.0. It has a pretty easy to use, drag-and-drop
> > interface for building dialog and such and works for most
> > basic GUIs. However, IMHO, their components (Widget's, in QT
> > lingo) are seriously lacking. I can't use their
> > drag-and-drop GUI any more because I find that I have to
> > sub-class just about every component that I use in order to
> > give it the functionality that I need. So, what this boils
> > down to is, it is basically just another C++ IDE. This
> > leaves the next horrific detail about C++ Builder; the
> > documentation. Again, IMHO, I believe a pack of grade school
> > kids randomly choosing words in no particular order could
> > probably, accidentally choose a more coherent layout for the
> > help. It is a real PITA to find anything in the help and
> > there is not much out in the world as far as community
> > support except for http://community.borland.com. Most of the
> > documentation you will find on their components will be for
> > Delphi, which is not so bad as it is easily converted. After
> > all of that, there may be some good news. I am currently
> > upgrading to their newest version; 6.0. This is supposed to
> > have much more powerful and better written components,
> > greatly improved documentation and even cross-platform
> > support. Borland is making a big push to be the one stop for
> > all platforms. Unfortunately, I won't receive my upgrade
> > until the end of the week so I can not verify any of these
> > claims for you yet. ;( If you like, email me off-channel
> > and I could let you know if v6.0 is worth the effort. IMHO,
> > QT wins hands down and it will continue to be my widget of
> > choice for personal use for many moons to come. Marcos
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com
> > [mailto:owner-qt-interest@trolltech.com]On > Behalf Of Arno
> > Granados
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 6:01 AM
> > To: qt-interest@trolltech.com
> > Subject: Re: QT vs C++ Builder
> >
> >
> > I used C++ Builder (the Borland Product) a few years ago. It
> > was a nice toolkit at the time, but it was also only for the
> > windows platform. I like QT in part because it is similar to
> > C++ builder, but, in my opinion, more powerful,
> > multi-platform, and more customizable. In particular, I
> > really like the flexibility of signals and slots in QT vs the
> > standard C++ callback model. I don't know the state of C++
> > builder these days, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend QT.
> >
> > -Arno Granados
> >
> >
> > cecile.goepfer@free.fr wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi !
> > >
> > > I've begun developing a GUI in QT but I discovered Builder
> > C++ and now
> > > I'm wavering betwwen the two of them. Does anybody know
> > both programs
> > > and help me in my choice ? In particular, I'd like to know
> > if C++ is
> > > easy to learn, as I've already
> > begun
> > > learning QT since a long time now.
> > >
> > > Thanks !
> > >
> > > Cecile Goepfer
> > >
> > > --
> > > List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
> >
> > --
> > List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
> >
> > --
> > List archive and information: http://qt-interest.trolltech.com
> >
Message 6 in thread
I came from the MSVC environment which is not without its problems, but the only IDE I've ever used that was worse than Builder/Delphi was VB which is trully appalling.
>>> "Paul Curtis" <plc@rowley.co.uk> 03/12/02 06:39pm >>>
We binned C++Builder and Delphi before switching to Qt.
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
Message 7 in thread
On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Ian Barrett wrote:
> I came from the MSVC environment which is not without its problems, but the only IDE I've ever used that was worse than Builder/Delphi was VB which is trully appalling.
>
> >>> "Paul Curtis" <plc@rowley.co.uk> 03/12/02 06:39pm >>>
> We binned C++Builder and Delphi before switching to Qt.
>
>
>
>
I tried Builder - the main problems I found were non standard C++
extensions dealt with by the compiler itself (rather than a preprocessor
like MOC) - e.g (IIRC) __property and __fastcall - and the fact that
component (widget) layouts were stored as Delphi/Pascal code. Also, it was
a bit hard to track through the code from main and really understand what
was going on.
Nick
Message 8 in thread
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Ian Barrett wrote:
>
> > I came from the MSVC environment which is not without its problems, but
the only IDE > I've ever used that was worse than Builder/Delphi was VB
which is trully appalling.
> >
> > >>> "Paul Curtis" <plc@rowley.co.uk> 03/12/02 06:39pm >>>
> > We binned C++Builder and Delphi before switching to Qt.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> I tried Builder - the main problems I found were non standard C++
> extensions dealt with by the compiler itself (rather than a preprocessor
> like MOC) - e.g (IIRC) __property and __fastcall - and the fact that
> component (widget) layouts were stored as Delphi/Pascal code. Also, it was
> a bit hard to track through the code from main and really understand what
> was going on.
>
That sounds more like your inexperience in the environment than a problem
with the environment. My biggest complaint (and most others) is the help.
And, just to set the record straight, does anyone here know that Kylix and
the forth coming C++ Builder for Linux are built on Qt? The VCL/CLX is a
wrapper around functionality that may or may not be Qt. This is a bit old,
but still correct what what I have heard:
http://www.borland.com/about/press/2000/trolltech.html
Anyone else hear differently?
--
[ signature omitted ]
Message 9 in thread
Arno,
> > Anyway, Qt isn't without problems. But it's easy to
> extend. Forget
> > Designer, it's too limited. Just write raw code. RAD environments
> > are for wimps, IMO, you need to be able to code. Writing
> all the code
> > for a product and not relying on a RAD environment means
> you know what
> > goies into your product.
>
> I generally agree here, I prefer to build my stuff in raw code.
> However, my company has implemented "coding standards", etc.,
> and the Designer does help keep everyone on the same page.
> Also, the designer in version 3.0 is significantly improved
> over the old designer; one can now create main window
> widgets, specify signals, etc.
Improved? Yes. Worth using? No.
And why would that be, you all ask? Well, I'll tell you. There is no
simple way to plug in your own design-time capabilities for anything
that is even moderately "advanced".
Got a new class derived from QAction and want to plug it into Designer?
Sorry, outa luck.
Got a new Outlook-style shortcut bar and want to add groups to it like
you can add pages to a QWizard? Sorry, no dice.
Want to add your own toolbars to a main window? Sorry, try again later.
Got some snappy new container and want to drag and drop onto it? No
way, not that I've found.
Sure, some things are easy to add to Designer (I've done it for a lot of
my widgets). But some things are impossible. It's good to read the
Designer source code, lots of goodies (and badies) in there.
Now, Delphi and C++Builder allow user-programmed custom design-time
dialogs which can make editing a breeze. I'd use them and write them
just to see what a dialog looks like, and use that to guide my code.
But I still wouldn't trust my code to Designer, it's not the way I work.
-- Paul.
Message 10 in thread
Nick Whitelegg wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2002, Ian Barrett wrote:
>
> > I came from the MSVC environment which is not without its problems,
> > but the only IDE I've ever used that was worse than
> Builder/Delphi was
> > VB which is trully appalling.
> >
> > >>> "Paul Curtis" <plc@rowley.co.uk> 03/12/02 06:39pm >>>
> > We binned C++Builder and Delphi before switching to Qt.
> >
>
> I tried Builder - the main problems I found were non standard
> C++ extensions dealt with by the compiler itself (rather than
> a preprocessor like MOC) - e.g (IIRC) __property and
> __fastcall - and the fact that component (widget) layouts
> were stored as Delphi/Pascal code. Also, it was a bit hard to
> track through the code from main and really understand what
> was going on.
At leat the Pro version comes with the source code to the VCL and RTL,
so you can at least patch up the broken bits and trace throug it. The
worst part is indeed the shoddy way in which C++Builder code interfacing
to Delphi "works"; we did all plug-in component development in Delphi,
and used C++Builder to build the body of the app.
Qt's easier. We use MSVC 6 (holding off on .NET) with some standard
tools such as Rational Quantify & Purify, and the standard SourceSafe
and SourceOffSite add-on. At least this brings us a platform we can
test on. C++Builder brings misery and now you pay a high price for the
privilege.
-- Paul.
