RE: [boost] Re: BGL example compile failure under VC++

From: John Britton (johnb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-06 10:49:42

> Actually, the Borland compiler was a much superior product.  The real
> winner was the Microsoft Foundation Classes, which encapsulated the
> horrors of the Windows API just well enough that shops that couldn't
> handle Windows programming in C but were too proud to use Basic moved
> to C++.  Borland had a competing product called OWL, and Microsoft
> refused to license MFC to Borland unless Borland dropped support for
> OWL.  Borland refused to do that to their customers.  Eventually
> Borland got an MFC license via a third party but by then it was too
> late.
True, the Borland compiler was indeed better until (rumor has it) Microsoft
hired away the best of the Borland team. We switched from Borland to
Microsoft when porting from 16-bit to 32-bit - believe it or not, we found
it easier to de-OWL-ify our code (but not then MFC-ify it!) and port to VC++
than to port to Borland Builder.