Boost logo

Boost :

From: William Kempf (sirwillard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-06 12:07:22

--- In boost_at_[hidden], "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_u...> wrote:
> Actually, the Borland compiler was a much superior product. The
> 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
> 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.

I don't agree. Borland started out on top, but VC++ surpassed them
in standards conformance (to the then draft standard, and yes this
comment is very ironic considering the current state), performance
(speed and size) and stability. OWL was a superior library over MFC
in most ways, so MFC alone wouldn't have been enough for VC++'s

Don't agree with my opinion? There are a lot of magazine comparisons
available from the time period that agree with me. VC++ was winning
literally all of the "Editor's Choice" awards for every magazine that
did comparisons of Windows compilers. So, agree or not, businesses
listened to these reviews and chose MS products to standardize on.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at