Board index » cppbuilder » why two ide bases

2003-10-14 12:45:31 PM
cppbuilder36
Why do you suppose Borland has created two seperate IDEs, one for Java/C++
(Jbuilder/CBX) and one for C#/Delphi (C#B/Octane). Surely splitting
development resources in two directions has a cost. Is it worth it?
Maybe Java/C++ is more text centered and C#/Delphi is more RAD, but that
distiction is fuzzy. Certainly powerful text/RAD is important in both
environments. Ok, well maybe C#/Delphi doesn't need the platform
independance of a Java IDE; but is dividing the resources worth the speed
gain from a native Win32 IDE?
I just can't figure out why Borland is developing two seperate IDE's when it
would seem combining the resources would make more sense. Can anyone
enlighten me?
 

Because the Delphi/C# IDE's have to be ported to .NET in the coming years
(The first JBuilder IDE's weren't pure java but were native Win32). The port
will be necessary because Borland is deprecating Win32. If the rumours are
right, Win32 is only a compatibility layer on Longhorn.
Peter
"Benjamin Pratt" wrote:

"Peter Agricola" wrote:
Sorry. Haven't got my first coffee yet today.
Of course Microsoft is deprecating Win32.
Peter
 

{smallsort}

"Benjamin Pratt" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
development, whereas C#/Delphi are Windows-specific. No need to write an
IDE in a cross-platform language if it is not going to be used on multiple
platforms to begin with.
Gambit
 

But of course when Mono is going on Linux, then any .NET app *should* work
on linux.
Which leads us to the position that there then could be lots of apps
available for linux(?) which might be counter to what MS wants! So at that
stage will MS try to stop Mono from being released?
(Just questions)
Pete
"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
"Benjamin Pratt" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
development, whereas C#/Delphi are Windows-specific. No need to write an
IDE in a cross-platform language if it is not going to be used on multiple
platforms to begin with.
Gambit
 

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
--
Ken
planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/
 

Peter Agricola wrote:
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"I'm not into working out. My philosophy: No pain, no pain." - Carol
Leifer.
 

Ken de Camargo Jr. wrote:
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"I never miss a chance to have sex or appear on television."
-{*word*151}Vidal
 

Pete Fraser wrote:
librenix.com/
(linked from slashdot)
 

"Adam Versteegen" wrote:
it is necessary there are many, many users of MONO. MONO only runs on Linux
so that means there must be many, many users of Linux. All those Linux/MONO
users stop using Windows on their desktops, because thats what we are
talking about. This must be a nightmare to uncle Bill.
Linux developers love C++. Unfortunately for this scenario .NET and MONO
needs managed C++. How many linux developers will go writing for a layer (
on Linux Mono can't become the OS like .NET on Windows) while they can
compile their code without changes for native apps?
Hey, what do I know ;-)
Peter
 

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers org
"And why should I know better by now/When I'm old enough not to?"
Beth Orton
 

"Hendrik Schober" wrote:
In the best case scenario I can compile my standard C++ with use of
wxWindows for .NET to MSIL.
We'll see.
Peter
 

Pete Fraser wrote:
IDE's on the success of mono? Furthermore, mono only gets you to linux
and unix. What about other platforms?
Keep in mind that JBuilder has been working on linux for well over two
years. Mono has yet to reach version 1.0.
PS: does mono run on osx?
h^2
 

"Harold Howe [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers org
"And why should I know better by now/When I'm old enough not to?"
Beth Orton
 

"Harold Howe [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
interesting thing to think about:
"Mono-culture and the .NETwork effect"
librenix.com/
--
Chris (TeamB);