Board index » delphi » Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?


2006-07-18 10:35:34 PM
delphi56
"Jon Robertson" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>wrote in
Quote
Muhamad Arif writes:

>If Delphi IDE is going to be rebuilt, grab some people from Microsoft
>(Quality department at least).

How often do you use Visual Studio? I have read several articles and
reviews from trustworthy sources that use it every day and have many,
many, complaints about quality and defects.

Gotta call BS on this one. Sure, Visual Studio has its quirks and
problems (as does any IDE), but it is *far* less buggy than any Borland
product I have used in the last several years. The compiler toolchain is
far more robust, and I can count the number of crashes I have had in simple
terms: zero.
BDS 2006, on the other hand, crashes on me at least twice a day (more if
I'm compiling a lot). it is also a memory pig, it has debugging problems,
and many of the design decisions made in the IDE drive me bonkers (using
absolute file-system paths rather than "virtual" paths for the project
manager, for example). Then there are the neverending problems with the
refactorings, the context-sensitive help (in fact the whole documentation
system sucks), and tooltip argument completion.
I work with both IDEs all the time, and I can say that Visual Studio 2003
(and even 2005) is *far* more stable at present than any version of
Borland Developer Studio. Borland (or DevCo) *really* needs to invest
some time stabilizing and speeding up the IDE, because right now it is
altogether too flaky and too slow.
mr_organic
 
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Chester writes:
Quote
What features would you like to see or change?


I would like a more focused product that is only
geared toward programming in Delphi.
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Quote
Clément Doss writes:
>I would like them to STOP new development, and focus on fixing one IDE.

>Let it be BDS2006. Work it out till everything is fixed. (VCL,
C++, .NET,
>the
>whole shibang)

>Get the compiler price close to nothing.

>Let us build the environment that suites our need through "plug-ins",
>and charge for them.

Sounds like an awesome business plan for lots of revenues for DevCo...

Oh, did I forget the <Sarcasm>tag?

While I sympathize with the hassle of a buggy development environment, I
also recognize that DevCo has to make money too. Otherwise, I will be
stuck
with /zero/ improvements to my beloved development tool.
I want to see bug fixes as much as the next guy. And, to be fair, we've
seen a lot of bug fixes already in D2006, even if there are still many
remaining bugs. But can you imagine the clamor if DevCo were to say they
would stop work on .NET 2.0, the 64-bit compiler, Unicode, and all the
other enhancements that are in the works? DevCo will just have to
continue to strike a balance with the available resources. The good news
is that DevCo will have a management that cares about releasing a quaility
product and knows how to do so, and will be able to spend money on Delphi
development proportionate to the revenue it is bringing in.
Rick Carter
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on delphi.newswhat.com
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Alan Garny writes:
Quote
otherwise there would also be C++ BuilderX, which as far as I can
tell was a big fiasco too.
FTR, the "fiasco" for C++BuilderX was lack of commitment from Borland.
C++BuilderX was just starting to look really good when Borland shelved
it.
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it is not here, it is not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

"Alan Garny" writes:
Quote
"I.P. Nichols" writes:
>"Joanna Carter [TeamB]" writes:
>>Believe me, BDS2006 is much better than Delphi 8 or BDS2005. D4 was pretty bad
>>as
>>well; you obviously haven't used every version :-)
>How quickly we forget C#Builder. ;-)

I guess we were talking about Delphi-related IDEs here, otherwise there
would also be C++ BuilderX, which as far as I can tell was a big fiasco
too.
The reason I think it relevant is because C#Builder was the debut of the
much heralded Galileo IDE that has morphed into the BDS.
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Ted writes:
Quote
Too bad Borland now broke the alt+f12 shortcut :-D
Hey, the Alt+F12 shortcut still works. The TMenuItem.Click is executed.
Unfortunatelly there is no OnClick handler assigned at that time :-(
--
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
(andy.jgknet.de/blog)
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

"John Kaster (Borland/DevCo)" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Alan Garny writes:
>otherwise there would also be C++ BuilderX, which as far as I can
>tell was a big fiasco too.
FTR, the "fiasco" for C++BuilderX was lack of commitment from Borland.
C++BuilderX was just starting to look really good when Borland shelved
it.
I must confess that I skipped CBX, as that was the time at which I shifted
back to Delphi. I just felt that C++ Builder was always behind Delphi and
that if I really wanted to take advantage of the latest technologies then
I'd better use Delphi. I seem to recall, however, that there was quite a bit
of disappointment with CBX in that there was no proper path between BCB and
CBX. Anyway, I for one surely would like a cross-platform IDE, but not
something like Kylix (CLX just didn't cut it with me).
Alan.
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Quote
>......... and build it around Visual Studio or make it cross-
compatible
>with different platforms (neither of which Delphi will ever do without
>starting again).
Agree.
Disagree completely. Rebuilding Delphi completely from scrach would
mean years before they would be ready to market anyting close to what
we have now, and years later before they would be able to add anything
new. Plus, new bugs would be introduced and need to be fixed.
www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html
The Delphi team already has laid the groundwork to make Delphi cross-
compatible with another platform; have you forgotten Kylix? I fail to
see how making Delphi a VS plug-in will enable it to support other
platforms; when MS talks about "cross-platform," it is obvious they're
just talking about different versions of Windows.
Rick Carter
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Chair, Delphi/Paradox SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
--- posted by geoForum on delphi.newswhat.com
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Alan Garny writes:
Quote
I seem to recall, however, that there was quite a bit of
disappointment with CBX in that there was no proper path between BCB
and CBX.
CBX was primarily for Ansi C++ development, not C++Builder/VCL
development.
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it is not here, it is not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

"Jon Robertson" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:

>How quickly we forget C#Builder. ;-)

Did anyone develop products with C#Builder? I thought it was just a beta
test for the new IDE... :D
Just ask Joe Mayo who got conned into writing a book about it titled
C#Builder Kick Start.
Heck it just might become a rare book item, Amazon used books list it as
"***BRAND NEW - NEVER USED***" for $1.09<g>
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

"John Kaster (Borland/DevCo)" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>wrote in news:44bcfdf8$1
@newsgroups.borland.com:
Quote
Alan Garny writes:

>otherwise there would also be C++ BuilderX, which as far as I can
>tell was a big fiasco too.

FTR, the "fiasco" for C++BuilderX was lack of commitment from Borland.
C++BuilderX was just starting to look really good when Borland shelved
it.

Agreed. I really was starting to like C++Builder X; I liked it (and
continue to like it) better than Eclipse with the CDE plugin. it is a shame
Borland punted it -- from a C++/C programmer's standpoing, it was head and
shoulders above BDS 2006 in lots of ways. Really, only the lack of a VCL
GUI builder kept it from being a complete success.
mr_organic
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Chester writes:
Quote
What features would you like to see or change?
The only thing I'd like them to change is to rework the VCL so it
is unicode compatible. Other than that I am quite happy with the
current product.
--
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Quote
What features would you like to see or change?
Management.
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

Quote
"mr_organic" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
news:44bcf1b6$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
>
>many of the design decisions made in the IDE drive me bonkers (using
>absolute file-system paths rather than "virtual" paths for the project
>manager, for example).
I'd love to hear the argument for that one. IMO, VS2005 file management
scheme has to be the most a$$ backward approach I have seen.
I can just hear this convo at MS:
Bob: "Hey, when the developer needs to use a file from their repository,
lets copy the file instead of simply using it and not tell the developer
that's what we did."
Bill: "Brilliant. That way when another developer modifies the file in
their repository, they won't get the change and introduce bugs."
Bob:"Wow, then if they complain, we will belittle them for not using
assemblies"
Bill:"Ha ha! The bonus is they will have to worry about distributing those
assemblies to the other developers *and* their customers"
<slaps hands and shouts together>
"Yippee! Assembly hell!"
PS: I already know about adding files as 'links' in VS to get around that
"feature". If there is some obvious glowing VS feature I am missing here,
I'd like to hear it.
krf
 

Re: If new DevCo builds a new Delphi from scratch?

"John Kaster (Borland/DevCo)" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Alan Garny writes:
>I seem to recall, however, that there was quite a bit of
>disappointment with CBX in that there was no proper path between BCB
>and CBX.
CBX was primarily for Ansi C++ development, not C++Builder/VCL
development.
Oh yes, indeed. I guess that is probably *the* (?) reason then that BCB users
were not very pleased... Anyway, I'd imagine they are pleased now with
BCB2006.
Alan.