﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <description><![CDATA[Comments for What’s New in C++Builder 2006]]></description>
    <title><![CDATA[Comments for What’s New in C++Builder 2006]]></title>
    <link>http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/33453</link>
    <!-- source: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/33453/feed-->
    <dc:date>2009-07-06T16:56:42-07:00</dc:date>
    <item>
      <description><![CDATA[If you would have taken some time and investigated the Quality Central for some reports on C++ 2006 you would have noticed, that the de facto C++ Builder is far behind the announced improvements.Continuing my old projects using STL e.g. is running against nebulous problems with the acclaimed Dinkumware.Moreover it would have been more serious to also mention functionalities, which now have vanished in BDS 2006 for C++.  To where the assisted inserting of classes, methods or fields have been banished? And why should this be an improvement?Also not mentioned is, that the C++ personality in BDS 2006 is the one of an underdog, the true improvements of the IDE as for Delphi are not existing within C++.This article seems to be written without watching real experiences.]]></description>
      <title><![CDATA[Please compare the de facto C++ personality]]></title>
      <managingEditor>
	 (Reinhard Scharnagl)
</managingEditor>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://threads.embarcadero.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=38961</guid>
      <dc:date>2006-03-06T22:28:08-08:00</dc:date>
      <pubDate>2006-03-06T22:28:08-08:00</pubDate>
      <source url="http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/33453/feed">Comments for What’s New in C++Builder 2006</source>
    </item>
    <generator>Atom 1.0 XSLT Transform v1 (http://atom.geekhood.net)</generator>
  </channel>
</rss>