Home » Language IDEs » C / C++ IDE (CDT) » CDT 4.0 Review (using BDS 2006 for comparison)
| CDT 4.0 Review (using BDS 2006 for comparison) [message #197192] |
Sat, 14 July 2007 20:03  |
Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: vleonty.gmail.com
One of the powerful aspects of Eclipse is that when a developer gains a
familiarity with working in one perspective, it is fairly easy to
adjust to another perspective. I have had to move between Java and C++
on various occasions and moving from one to the other within Eclipse
was relatively smooth, since I was familiar and comfortable with the
environment and work flow in Eclipse. Yes, there are key differences
between the perspectives, but the similarities are much more plentiful.
It is nice to have one powerful development environment I can rely on.
I look forward to the day when it could be a more powerful RAD tool for
the Windows environment.
The last little while, I have been working the Borland/CodeGear IDEs
for C++ development so my brief review will be a little more slanted
towards comparing those two, at least at a surface level.
First, the Editor improvements for CDT 4.0. In order to be received as
an alternative to fuller featured IDEs, it is important to provide the
features that the alternative IDEs provide, but also to surpass and
improve on these features in order to give users the incentive to
change.
Here is a breakdown of my observations:
* I like the ability to customize the coloring of the C++ Editor. I
find the CDT 4.0 one to be quite powerful and easy to use. It allows
for much greater flexibility than the Borland Developer Studio (BDS)
2006 environment.
* The Inactive code highlighting is another nice-to-have feature which
is found in CDT 4.0, which I do not find in BDS 2006.
* What is missing in BDS 2006 and is available in CDT is a code
formatter. There are third party tools that can be integrated with the
BDS environment, but I have found them to be problematic. I like the
fact that this is integrated with the environment and does not have to
be done on the command line external to the development environment.
* I like the ability to be able to customize the code folding like
Macros, Functions, Methods, Structures, Comments, and Header comments.
There have been times in the BDS 2006 environment, when I have wanted
to have finer grained control in that area of the editor.
Next, the Code Navigation views for CDT 4.0. These views make working
with projects of all sizes a much more efficient process. Being able to
have various views at ones finger tips makes development, debugging,
and testing an easier and more effective process. Here is the breakdown
of my observations:
* I really like the depth of browsing offered by the Include browser.
The BDS 2006 Structure view gives a nice flat view of the include files
for a unit, but the CDT 4.0 Include browser provides the ability to
drill further into the included header files allowing for more in depth
queries.
* The Call hierarchy view, which is available in CDT 4.0, is one I
would really like to have in BDS 2006. This is something that can be
obtained in BDS using AQTime profiling or some other third party tool.
I think it should be part of the environment.
Next, the Debugger support in CDT 4.0. The power with Eclipse is that
it is designed to be able to integrate with various different
debuggers, compilers, linkers, and other tools. Borland and Microsoft
IDEs allow for this to a varying extent, but it is not typically in
their interests to do so. I have to say my experiences with the Borland
debugging in C++Builder 6 and 2006 has not be all that bad given my
requirements. However, this is more dealing with the debugger itself.
Here is a quick breakdown:
* Where CDT surpasses the BDS IDE is with Breakpoint actions and
Contextual launch support. Neither of these are present in BDS 2006. In
BDS, the user is able to customize the project options and have various
build profiles, but the CDT/ Eclipse Launch support is better
integrated with the front end UI.
Finally, some of the other CDT 4.0 features. Here is a quick breakdown:
* I like the Task tags. It allows the developer to organize various
tasks in the code which can go beyond the simple TODO item.
Here are some of the things that would be nice to see in CDT in the
future:
* The Borland IDE has a third party tool called GExperts. The Procedure
list feature is one of the features I miss the most when moving to
another development environment. It really helps to navigate around
large CPP files. I simple hit CTRL-G and it brings up a list of all the
unit's methods in front of me. It has a field where I can enter search
criteria to dynamically filter the list. Then I can click on the
desired method, and it will take me to the location of the method in
the CPP file. It is fast and easy to use. It would be nice to see that
in CDT.
* It would be nice to have a way to move back and forth between
Microsoft Visual C++ and Borland/CodeGear C++ projects to CDT project
in an easy fashion. Some import/export feature? This is a really out
there type of feature and something that is probably outside of the CDT
project itself. This would be quite challenging and perhaps of
questionable value to a large base of users.
So, this is my overall view and initial impressions of CDT 4.0. For a
fully description of each feature, refer to the CDT 4.0 documentation
that comes with the plug in. I compared it to BDS 2006 since that is
the environment I have been doing C++ work in recently. I spent a fair
bit of time working with it. I suspect that there is not many reviews
of CDT with this particular slant. Anyhow, I apologize in advance if
there are any omissions or minor mistakes in my review and comparisons.
Development environments can be quite complex and offer end users lots
of power if they want it. As a result, it is quite easy to miss
something that might be available - although if the UI is well
designed, it should be easy to find ;-)
For a truly comprehensive comparison, I would have had to have had the
same project of a fair size that was workable in both environments. I
have yet to pursue a way of migrating a project over from BDS 2006 to
Eclipse CDT 4.0. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to set up the CDT
environment to hook into the Borland toolchain. However, the first key
limitation is that the BDS IDE allows for visual prototyping and
drag-and-drop GUI development which is lacking in Eclipse CDT. I am
sure that there are a host of other issues with migration as well.
If you got this far, thanks for taking the time to read it.
--
|
|
|
| Re: CDT 4.0 Review (using BDS 2006 for comparison) [message #197203 is a reply to message #197192] |
Sat, 14 July 2007 21:23  |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dschaefer.qnx.com
Very cool. Thanks for this! I haven't had a chance to read it all, but
I'll definitely take the time to do so. If we are to reach "Uberness" :)
we need to compare nicely to all commercial C/C++ IDEs. I don't have
experience with Borland/CodeGear's tools so this will help a lot.
Cheers,
Doug
Vince wrote:
> One of the powerful aspects of Eclipse is that when a developer gains a
> familiarity with working in one perspective, it is fairly easy to
> adjust to another perspective. I have had to move between Java and C++
> on various occasions and moving from one to the other within Eclipse
> was relatively smooth, since I was familiar and comfortable with the
> environment and work flow in Eclipse. Yes, there are key differences
> between the perspectives, but the similarities are much more plentiful.
> It is nice to have one powerful development environment I can rely on.
> I look forward to the day when it could be a more powerful RAD tool for
> the Windows environment.
>
> The last little while, I have been working the Borland/CodeGear IDEs
> for C++ development so my brief review will be a little more slanted
> towards comparing those two, at least at a surface level.
>
> First, the Editor improvements for CDT 4.0. In order to be received as
> an alternative to fuller featured IDEs, it is important to provide the
> features that the alternative IDEs provide, but also to surpass and
> improve on these features in order to give users the incentive to
> change.
>
> Here is a breakdown of my observations:
> * I like the ability to customize the coloring of the C++ Editor. I
> find the CDT 4.0 one to be quite powerful and easy to use. It allows
> for much greater flexibility than the Borland Developer Studio (BDS)
> 2006 environment.
> * The Inactive code highlighting is another nice-to-have feature which
> is found in CDT 4.0, which I do not find in BDS 2006.
> * What is missing in BDS 2006 and is available in CDT is a code
> formatter. There are third party tools that can be integrated with the
> BDS environment, but I have found them to be problematic. I like the
> fact that this is integrated with the environment and does not have to
> be done on the command line external to the development environment.
> * I like the ability to be able to customize the code folding like
> Macros, Functions, Methods, Structures, Comments, and Header comments.
> There have been times in the BDS 2006 environment, when I have wanted
> to have finer grained control in that area of the editor.
>
> Next, the Code Navigation views for CDT 4.0. These views make working
> with projects of all sizes a much more efficient process. Being able to
> have various views at ones finger tips makes development, debugging,
> and testing an easier and more effective process. Here is the breakdown
> of my observations:
> * I really like the depth of browsing offered by the Include browser.
> The BDS 2006 Structure view gives a nice flat view of the include files
> for a unit, but the CDT 4.0 Include browser provides the ability to
> drill further into the included header files allowing for more in depth
> queries.
> * The Call hierarchy view, which is available in CDT 4.0, is one I
> would really like to have in BDS 2006. This is something that can be
> obtained in BDS using AQTime profiling or some other third party tool.
> I think it should be part of the environment.
>
> Next, the Debugger support in CDT 4.0. The power with Eclipse is that
> it is designed to be able to integrate with various different
> debuggers, compilers, linkers, and other tools. Borland and Microsoft
> IDEs allow for this to a varying extent, but it is not typically in
> their interests to do so. I have to say my experiences with the Borland
> debugging in C++Builder 6 and 2006 has not be all that bad given my
> requirements. However, this is more dealing with the debugger itself.
> Here is a quick breakdown:
> * Where CDT surpasses the BDS IDE is with Breakpoint actions and
> Contextual launch support. Neither of these are present in BDS 2006. In
> BDS, the user is able to customize the project options and have various
> build profiles, but the CDT/ Eclipse Launch support is better
> integrated with the front end UI.
>
> Finally, some of the other CDT 4.0 features. Here is a quick breakdown:
> * I like the Task tags. It allows the developer to organize various
> tasks in the code which can go beyond the simple TODO item.
>
> Here are some of the things that would be nice to see in CDT in the
> future:
> * The Borland IDE has a third party tool called GExperts. The Procedure
> list feature is one of the features I miss the most when moving to
> another development environment. It really helps to navigate around
> large CPP files. I simple hit CTRL-G and it brings up a list of all the
> unit's methods in front of me. It has a field where I can enter search
> criteria to dynamically filter the list. Then I can click on the
> desired method, and it will take me to the location of the method in
> the CPP file. It is fast and easy to use. It would be nice to see that
> in CDT.
> * It would be nice to have a way to move back and forth between
> Microsoft Visual C++ and Borland/CodeGear C++ projects to CDT project
> in an easy fashion. Some import/export feature? This is a really out
> there type of feature and something that is probably outside of the CDT
> project itself. This would be quite challenging and perhaps of
> questionable value to a large base of users.
>
> So, this is my overall view and initial impressions of CDT 4.0. For a
> fully description of each feature, refer to the CDT 4.0 documentation
> that comes with the plug in. I compared it to BDS 2006 since that is
> the environment I have been doing C++ work in recently. I spent a fair
> bit of time working with it. I suspect that there is not many reviews
> of CDT with this particular slant. Anyhow, I apologize in advance if
> there are any omissions or minor mistakes in my review and comparisons.
> Development environments can be quite complex and offer end users lots
> of power if they want it. As a result, it is quite easy to miss
> something that might be available - although if the UI is well
> designed, it should be easy to find ;-)
>
> For a truly comprehensive comparison, I would have had to have had the
> same project of a fair size that was workable in both environments. I
> have yet to pursue a way of migrating a project over from BDS 2006 to
> Eclipse CDT 4.0. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to set up the CDT
> environment to hook into the Borland toolchain. However, the first key
> limitation is that the BDS IDE allows for visual prototyping and
> drag-and-drop GUI development which is lacking in Eclipse CDT. I am
> sure that there are a host of other issues with migration as well.
>
> If you got this far, thanks for taking the time to read it.
>
|
|
|
| Re: CDT 4.0 Review (using BDS 2006 for comparison) [message #197211 is a reply to message #197203] |
Sat, 14 July 2007 21:25 |
| Eclipse User |
|
|
|
Originally posted by: dschaefer.qnx.com
BTW, Borland is an Eclipse Strategic Member, i.e., they are on the
Eclipse Board. It would be nice if they would contribute to and adopt
the CDT too :).
Doug
Doug Schaefer wrote:
> Very cool. Thanks for this! I haven't had a chance to read it all, but
> I'll definitely take the time to do so. If we are to reach "Uberness" :)
> we need to compare nicely to all commercial C/C++ IDEs. I don't have
> experience with Borland/CodeGear's tools so this will help a lot.
>
> Cheers,
> Doug
>
> Vince wrote:
>> One of the powerful aspects of Eclipse is that when a developer gains a
>> familiarity with working in one perspective, it is fairly easy to
>> adjust to another perspective. I have had to move between Java and C++
>> on various occasions and moving from one to the other within Eclipse
>> was relatively smooth, since I was familiar and comfortable with the
>> environment and work flow in Eclipse. Yes, there are key differences
>> between the perspectives, but the similarities are much more plentiful.
>> It is nice to have one powerful development environment I can rely on.
>> I look forward to the day when it could be a more powerful RAD tool for
>> the Windows environment.
>>
>> The last little while, I have been working the Borland/CodeGear IDEs
>> for C++ development so my brief review will be a little more slanted
>> towards comparing those two, at least at a surface level.
>>
>> First, the Editor improvements for CDT 4.0. In order to be received as
>> an alternative to fuller featured IDEs, it is important to provide the
>> features that the alternative IDEs provide, but also to surpass and
>> improve on these features in order to give users the incentive to
>> change.
>>
>> Here is a breakdown of my observations:
>> * I like the ability to customize the coloring of the C++ Editor. I
>> find the CDT 4.0 one to be quite powerful and easy to use. It allows
>> for much greater flexibility than the Borland Developer Studio (BDS)
>> 2006 environment.
>> * The Inactive code highlighting is another nice-to-have feature which
>> is found in CDT 4.0, which I do not find in BDS 2006.
>> * What is missing in BDS 2006 and is available in CDT is a code
>> formatter. There are third party tools that can be integrated with the
>> BDS environment, but I have found them to be problematic. I like the
>> fact that this is integrated with the environment and does not have to
>> be done on the command line external to the development environment.
>> * I like the ability to be able to customize the code folding like
>> Macros, Functions, Methods, Structures, Comments, and Header comments.
>> There have been times in the BDS 2006 environment, when I have wanted
>> to have finer grained control in that area of the editor.
>>
>> Next, the Code Navigation views for CDT 4.0. These views make working
>> with projects of all sizes a much more efficient process. Being able to
>> have various views at ones finger tips makes development, debugging,
>> and testing an easier and more effective process. Here is the breakdown
>> of my observations:
>> * I really like the depth of browsing offered by the Include browser.
>> The BDS 2006 Structure view gives a nice flat view of the include files
>> for a unit, but the CDT 4.0 Include browser provides the ability to
>> drill further into the included header files allowing for more in depth
>> queries.
>> * The Call hierarchy view, which is available in CDT 4.0, is one I
>> would really like to have in BDS 2006. This is something that can be
>> obtained in BDS using AQTime profiling or some other third party tool.
>> I think it should be part of the environment.
>>
>> Next, the Debugger support in CDT 4.0. The power with Eclipse is that
>> it is designed to be able to integrate with various different
>> debuggers, compilers, linkers, and other tools. Borland and Microsoft
>> IDEs allow for this to a varying extent, but it is not typically in
>> their interests to do so. I have to say my experiences with the Borland
>> debugging in C++Builder 6 and 2006 has not be all that bad given my
>> requirements. However, this is more dealing with the debugger itself.
>> Here is a quick breakdown:
>> * Where CDT surpasses the BDS IDE is with Breakpoint actions and
>> Contextual launch support. Neither of these are present in BDS 2006. In
>> BDS, the user is able to customize the project options and have various
>> build profiles, but the CDT/ Eclipse Launch support is better
>> integrated with the front end UI.
>>
>> Finally, some of the other CDT 4.0 features. Here is a quick breakdown:
>> * I like the Task tags. It allows the developer to organize various
>> tasks in the code which can go beyond the simple TODO item.
>>
>> Here are some of the things that would be nice to see in CDT in the
>> future:
>> * The Borland IDE has a third party tool called GExperts. The Procedure
>> list feature is one of the features I miss the most when moving to
>> another development environment. It really helps to navigate around
>> large CPP files. I simple hit CTRL-G and it brings up a list of all the
>> unit's methods in front of me. It has a field where I can enter search
>> criteria to dynamically filter the list. Then I can click on the
>> desired method, and it will take me to the location of the method in
>> the CPP file. It is fast and easy to use. It would be nice to see that
>> in CDT.
>> * It would be nice to have a way to move back and forth between
>> Microsoft Visual C++ and Borland/CodeGear C++ projects to CDT project
>> in an easy fashion. Some import/export feature? This is a really out
>> there type of feature and something that is probably outside of the CDT
>> project itself. This would be quite challenging and perhaps of
>> questionable value to a large base of users.
>>
>> So, this is my overall view and initial impressions of CDT 4.0. For a
>> fully description of each feature, refer to the CDT 4.0 documentation
>> that comes with the plug in. I compared it to BDS 2006 since that is
>> the environment I have been doing C++ work in recently. I spent a fair
>> bit of time working with it. I suspect that there is not many reviews
>> of CDT with this particular slant. Anyhow, I apologize in advance if
>> there are any omissions or minor mistakes in my review and comparisons.
>> Development environments can be quite complex and offer end users lots
>> of power if they want it. As a result, it is quite easy to miss
>> something that might be available - although if the UI is well
>> designed, it should be easy to find ;-)
>>
>> For a truly comprehensive comparison, I would have had to have had the
>> same project of a fair size that was workable in both environments. I
>> have yet to pursue a way of migrating a project over from BDS 2006 to
>> Eclipse CDT 4.0. I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to set up the CDT
>> environment to hook into the Borland toolchain. However, the first key
>> limitation is that the BDS IDE allows for visual prototyping and
>> drag-and-drop GUI development which is lacking in Eclipse CDT. I am
>> sure that there are a host of other issues with migration as well.
>>
>> If you got this far, thanks for taking the time to read it.
>>
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sat May 10 05:58:19 EDT 2025
Powered by FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03762 seconds |
Home