Go back to Richel Bilderbeek's homepage.

Go back to Richel Bilderbeek's C++ page.

(C++) Comparison of C++ Builder and Qt Creator

This article is about comparing C++ Builder and Qt Creator. After nine years experience with C++ Builder and working with Qt Creator for about a year, it is time to make a personal comparison.

Quick facts chart

Discussion

Below, I discuss the three items I encountered most in detail: writing console applications, writing GUI applications and documentation needed to learn both IDEs.

Console applications

For console applications, the switch from C++ Builder to Qt Creator is easy, as there are few differences between the IDEs. The main advantage of Qt Creator is its superior compiler with 100% (can this be true?) Boost support.

When a console application is started, both C++ Builder and Qt Creator show a non-minimal main function. In both IDEs, this initial code can be ruthlessly removed.

GUI applications

For GUI applications, the switch from C++ Builder to Qt Creator is hard. C++ Builder uses the VCL libary, where Qt Creator uses the very different Qt4 libary.

I have been using the GUI designer on a 1024x768 resolution for Qt Creator and 800x600 for C++ Builder. Although the screen resolution I used for C++ Builder was lower, the screen felt less full: in C++ Builder you can hide all windows by clicking the X on top-right of eacht window. In Qt Creator some, but not all, windows can be hidden by clicking on different positions, so it is easier to clean up the designer screen in C++ Builder.

Personally, the main difference between these graphical libraries is the ease of self-learning: there are about 800 Qt classes [1] and about 1000 VCL classes (estimation from VCL hierarchy chart). For me, it felt easier to discover the VCL classes' working: all visual components can be explored with the Object Inspector and there is a one-to-one transition to do the same adaptations in code. In my humble opinion, VCL classes are easier to learn by experimenting with them.

Both C++ Builder and Qt Creator come with some default visual components/widgets (a C++ Builder Component equals a Qt Creator Widget). What I do not understand of Qt Creator (yet), is that one needs a QLabel to display an image, where in C++ Builder one can use a TLabel for text and TImage for images. I would find it appropriate that a QLabel/TLabel displays text only.

A GUI designer does not only enable a programmer to design a dialog, but also to add member functions to it. In C++ Builder this is done very transparently: in the Object Inspector one can select each Component's Events and by double-clicking generate a custom-named member function. In Qt Creator one must implement virtual member functions with pre-defined names that are not known to the beginning programmer.

The layout managent of the visual components for me was easier in C++ Builder, where one needs to use TPanels as workhorses and set their alignments. The layout managers of Qt Creator work fine, but I have not lost my preferences for the C++ Builder way.

The architecture of using VCL or Qt classes differs. Using a VCL class is basic by default: one instanciates it and let it be managed by itself or something else using its interface only. In Qt classes it is often the case that a virtual member function needs to be implemented. For a beginning programmer, these member function names are nearly magical ('How could I know that method's name?') as well as their working ('How can I know what a paintEvent does?'). In VCL classes, member functions can be redefined as well, but need not to by default. So in my humble opinion, I think that for a beginning programmer the Qt classes appear less straightforward.

Documentation

For both C++ Builder and Qt Creator one needs books or online documentation to find the way. All the Qt classes' methods, properties, ancestors and derived classes can all be found online, where the VCL classes this is not the case: these are found in the context-sensitive help of C++ Builder where these are described briefly. Unexpectly, when I started working with C++ Builder, I did not need this high-detail information, as I could find out how it worked myself. When I need to get something done with Qt, I find myself having my (two) Qt books opened and about eight Firefox tabs open, often without finding the answer to my question. So I would say that Qt Creator is well-documented but not in a way that a beginner needs, where with C++ Builder the brief documentation suffices.

Summary

My personal conclusion is that I have found it easier to learn to use C++ Builder than Qt Creator. Qt Creator is still young and will hopefully make my critique redundant in the future. That Qt Creator is free, cross-platform and is supplied with a great compiler makes the transition from C++ Builder to Qt Creator worth it. I hope my website will help others to take the same step.

Post your feedback

Feel free to post your feedback about this article at Programmer's Heaven.

References

1. Nokia overview of all Qt classes

Go back to Richel Bilderbeek's C++ page.

Go back to Richel Bilderbeek's homepage.