|"> products. Great stuff - exactly something that could give Linux an extra |"> boost. I would like to ask everyone on this list to send IBM an e-mail |"> (http://www.ibm.com/Assist/ ; if you want to know more about it, |"> http://www.software.ibm.com/ad/visualage_c++/) |"> |"> This is what I send them; I encourage you to send the same or similar; by |"> making our wishes known, we could win ourselves an important ally. |" |"I would just like to add that everything is not always as good as it might |"seem. I used VAC++ about a year ago under OS/2. The software recommended |"at least 32M of ram, and stated that you needed 64 megs to realistically |"use the visual tools. The compiler proper was so-so, I can't compare it to |"gcc because I haven't used gcc enough yet. But compared with Watcom and |"High C++ it didn't fare too well.
Well, let me put it this way: I have extensive experience with various C++ compilers, but this was the first time that 'Visual' actually meant a way of programming, instead of just a buzzword. I can't comment on the quality of the code generated, but in the live(!) demonstrations I saw, the ease of generating UIs is high. I did ask for an evaluation version, of course. Also keep in mind that I saw the demonstrations performed on Laptops running Windows NT. As most laptops are not normally equipped with lots of memory, I wonder about the 64M claim: Memory requirements for Win95 (add 4 MB for Win NT): C development: 8 MB RAM minimum 12 MB RAM recommended C++ development 12 MB RAM minimum 16 MB RAM recommended C++ Visual development 16 MB RAM minimum 24 MB RAM recommended |"The Windowing Class Library (OCL I think it's called now) looked nice, |"very modern C++ with good cross platform capabilities. It did have poorish |"docs when I was looking at it. |" |"Since then VAC++ has become basically the defacto OS/2 compiler, mostly |"because everyone else dropped support for their compilers on OS/2. |" |"The only two things that I think Linux could benift from the VAC set is |"the debugger (it was very nice looking, but slow and buggy) and the Visual |"Devel tools -- which were very nice but slow (and probably buggy ;>). What I have seen of the debugger and profiler seemed to be very sophisticated; if I had something like that for Linux right now, I'd be a very happy camper. gprof is nice, but it offers little or no tuning capabilities. |"Now, I might be biased, I evaluated the beta of the program one year ago |"and was so unimpressed by it that I didn't even look at the release. My |"Os/2 friends that did buy it confirmed that the release wasn't all that |"much better.. Version 4 which I think has been released for windows I |"haven't even looked at, so I will make no comments. I still think the Linux community would benefit greatly from an application suite such as VisualAge - having a major company like IBM committing themselves to Linux would be a great incentive for other companies to follow suit. Ronald van Loon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "I am waiting as fast as I can! I want patience, and I want it *NOW*!" - Bethany J. Parkhurst