From: test AT test DOT fr (Cyber neuneu v0.1 beta 1) Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp Subject: Re: C++ Builder Works Fast: No it's a BIG SHIT! Organization: ... Message-ID: <37c6fd94.8830948@news.free.fr> References: <37C047CA DOT DAE5F79C AT bigfoot DOT com> <9tjx3.2311$ua1 DOT 30278 AT news DOT tpnet DOT pl> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.452 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 36 Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 02:53:27 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.232.26.243 X-Complaints-To: abuse AT proxad DOT net X-Trace: nnrp2.proxad.net 935722407 212.232.26.243 (Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:53:27 MEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Aug 1999 04:53:27 MEST To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com I'm sorry to tell you but the compiler in C++ Builder (I don't talk about the ide and the components which are excellent) is a BIG SHIT! I made some tests whith similar small codes in Java and C/C++ (originally I wanted to compare Java and C/C++ performance) and as I owned DJGPP and C++ Builder 3, I could perform the C/C++ tests in both environments. My surprise was that C++ Builder (Commercial) is ALWAYS SLOWER than Djgpp (Free) (with -O2 optimization for both compilers). I have not finished all the tests I want to build but my early conclusion is: If you want a REAL FAST compiler and you don't need a great ide CHOOSE GPP!!! It is particularly true when you need to use String class: on my 4th test which is a selection sort on 10000 string objects (8 letters), DJGPP took 12440 ms, Java (Sun's jdk 1.2 with JIT) 74000 ms and C++ Builder ... 164730 ms !!! (in other words more than 13 times slower than DGJPP !!). I think as far I'm concerned that this slowness is unacceptable from a commercial product ! And I decided to use Borland compilers no longer... My tests are available on http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/radiohead/4/jbenche.htm Sorry: only a few parts of this site are in english for the moment On Thu, 26 Aug 1999 22:46:29 GMT, "Tomasz Barańczuk" wrote: >If the performance of Borland C++ doesn't give you a sattisfaction, so try Borland C++ Builder. It >supports very good optimalization, but don't allow to create programs that run under pure DOS (it's >not a problem now) and to move them from UNIX platform (it's a big one). >