Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?


2004-01-23 01:18:34 AM
cppbuilder39
As I read that you guys don't want to use BCB for new projects because it is
the last version of that product so there won't be support for the new Win32
stuff that appears in Windows and apparently are thinking of moving to
another compiler vendor. You know that no new Win32 stuff will appear in
Windows because Microsoft is moving exclusively to .NET for new stuff.
Borland is releasing tools that work with the .NET new stuff.
Therefore you are annoyed at Borland because they are not going to support
the new Win32 stuff where there will be no new Win32 stuff and annoyed at
Borland because they are supporting the new .NET stuff which is where all
the new Windows stuff will be. So Borland tools will continue to support
the Win32 stuff that exists but will not be enhanced as well as the new
stuff that comes out which Microsoft has said will be .NET. Because Borland
is providing support for Win32 and .NET you are angry and are considering
switching to some other vendor because their tools will provide support for
Win32 and .NET.
Don't you see some glitches in that reasoning?
. Ed
PS: deliberately overquoted to give the feel of the exchange.
Quote
Dave Jewell wrote in message
news:400fa881$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>Peter Agricola wrote
>Microsoft has stated that .NET is the future of Windows and
>that any new technology will only be provided on .NET. (This
>is not the same as the rumours of .NET being the API in
>Longhorn, which is a port from old technology to .NET.) So you
>should develop new technology only on .NET just like Microsoft
>does.

Yeah, but it's also very obvious that the Win32 API is going to be
with us for some time to come. If your app doesn't need the
unspecified "new technology", there's no compelling reason to move
wholesale to .NET. Furthermore, everything would suggest that the
application development model is going to change quite significantly
when Longhorn comes out. Nobody wants a rerun of the OS/2
rewriting experience..... :-)

>For you VCL developers that will be piece of cake because Borland
>has already stated to support VCL for NET and managed C++ in an
>upcomming version of CBX.

I think that remains to be seen, Peter.
 
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

"Michael McCulloch" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 11:49:31 -0700, "Jeff Douglass" <.>wrote:
have not been promising so far. The double-buffering offered in
WinForms and GDI+ is great in theory and the code is a relative breeze
to write, but the performance is pretty bad.
I've found you can get much better performance with PInvoke to GDI. I
believe the VCL.Net actually does this anyway, so it's possible it could
considerably outperform WinForms in some circumstances, but I haven't
checked.
*Of course* you don't want to hear this, it would be much better to use the
nice System.Drawing classes etc. On the other hand, it means you can use
.Net for most of your app and just PInvoke to GDI where you have to,
hopefully stripping out the code later when the perf issues have been sorted
(ever the optimist).
Microsoft has actually documented somewhere how to use GDI safely in a
WinForm app, it is not difficult.
Tim
Thoughts on Borland:
www.itwriting.com/blog/
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Quote
Don't you see some glitches in that reasoning?
That may be the logic for some people's decision but not
all. Our logic is that we don't want to start any new
projects with a product that is broken and will not be
fixed. We're putting off our decision as long as possible
to see what Borland does with the next release of CBX.
If it offers some GUI development tools that work it will
be a possibility for us. If not, we'll go with some other
product that is supported. When it comes to crunch time
if Borland hasn't released something working, they won't be in
our decision.
BTW, I don't see what all the deal about another open letter is
with people here. I didn't find the last ones very informative
and now I hear that the guy that wrote them is no longer
there. We need to see a released and working product,
not some hazy letter of intent with no time lines. We can't
base our production on something like that.
If it means going to wxWindows, that may still be viable,
depending on how well Borland integrates it into CBX.
It wouldn't be my first choice, but it could be an option.
At this point, .Net doesn't concern
me. We are going to be doing Win32 for the next
few years. In 5 years or so, who knows? We may
be a *nix shop. This is actually possible which is
why I'm interested in CBX.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Quote
... BTW, I don't see what all the deal about another
open letter is with people here. ...
I agree. I usually gauge a vendor by what he does, not by what letters he
writes.
Quote
... In 5 years or so, who knows? We may be a *nix shop. ...
Exactly. BCB specificly addresses Windows (ok so Kylix is around). CBX
specifically addresses developing for whatever platform you want.
I've been around a while. I was annoyed and fought about moving to support
the changes in DOS 2, in OS/2, the text mode versions of Windows, Windows
386, 16 bit Windows 3.* and now 32 bit Windows. At each step I resented the
changes and paid dearly for it. Do what I say and not what I do. Embrace
change. Also note that people will pay though the nose for the latest,
greatest thing.
By the way, it looks as if the future may not necessarily be limited to
moving to the latest Windows or Unix or one of the Unix wanna-be's. A lot
of work is done in embedded and the growth rate of that field is massive.
Think phones, PDA's, ARM processor, Symbian - all things which are also
addressed by CBX.
. Ed
Quote
Duane Hebert wrote in message
news:401009a4$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Quote
Exactly. BCB specificly addresses Windows (ok so Kylix is around). CBX
specifically addresses developing for whatever platform you want.
Yep. That's what's interesting about it. The only problem is the timing
of some working release for us. I like the idea and if there was a working
version with some sort of GUI support we would probably be currently
converting our GUI stuff to that.
Quote
I've been around a while. I was annoyed and fought about moving to support
the changes in DOS 2, in OS/2, the text mode versions of Windows, Windows
386, 16 bit Windows 3.* and now 32 bit Windows. At each step I resented the
changes and paid dearly for it. Do what I say and not what I do. Embrace
change. Also note that people will pay though the nose for the latest,
greatest thing.
It doesn't really bother me when platforms change, especially when they
get better. Designing 16 bit DOS apps had myriad problems that
I no longer have to deal with. (Even that was much better than Octal
machine code for pdp/10/11/12s)
I'm not so sure about this managed C++ though. I love C++ as a language
and would prefer to use it. Even that though is just a personal preference.
Software engineering is about a lot more than language syntax and style.
Quote
By the way, it looks as if the future may not necessarily be limited to
moving to the latest Windows or Unix or one of the Unix wanna-be's. A lot
of work is done in embedded and the growth rate of that field is massive.
Think phones, PDA's, ARM processor, Symbian - all things which are also
addressed by CBX.
Yep. That's another point in favor of CBX. Our systems are generally control systems
or remote management systems accessing the control systems. The remote systems
are always going to be on some user friendly desktop but the control systems would
fit much better into some imbedded platform. We also develop some of our own small
controls that use PICs and such so it could be interesting.
I just wish that Borland would get something out there soon.
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Why want you people Borland to publish letters???
Peter, I don't understand what you're asking?
Dave
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:18:34 -0500, "Ed Mulroy [TeamB]"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
You know that no new Win32 stuff will appear in
Windows because Microsoft is moving exclusively to .NET for new stuff.
Yeah, Microsoft is moving to .NET for *new stuff*. However, Microsoft
has not dropped all support for Win32 development *right now*.
Quote
Don't you see some glitches in that reasoning?
Can't you understand the difference between dropping support of a
development tool altogether with warning vs. giving customers
reasonable information regarding the support lifetime of a development
tool so that they can plan ahead accordingly?
Support BCB (fix bugs in the IDE and compiler) until the release of
Longhorn (or some other reasonable length of time Borland can tell us
IN ADVANCE) and then I'll shut up. Otherwise what they've done is
inexcusable.
---
Michael McCulloch
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:32:29 -0000, "Tim Anderson"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
*Of course* you don't want to hear this ...
Yep, that isn't what I wanted to hear. Microsoft sure isn't helping to
foster .NET adoption with this performance cloud{*word*154} over the API.
They have no one to blame but themselves.
---
Michael McCulloch
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

I wrote:
Quote
Can't you understand the difference between dropping support of a
development tool altogether with warning...
That should read "without warning" if anyone cares.
---
Michael McCulloch
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
I've been around a while. I was annoyed and fought about moving to support
the changes in DOS 2, in OS/2, the text mode versions of Windows, Windows
386, 16 bit Windows 3.* and now 32 bit Windows. At each step I resented the
changes and paid dearly for it. Do what I say and not what I do. Embrace
change. Also note that people will pay though the nose for the latest,
greatest thing.
Ed,
Some of the previous transitions offered much more compelling advantages. I wanted a
32 bit address space to program in back in the mid 80s because I was coding math
models that were a pain to deal with in segmented architectures. So the transition to
32 bits made life a lot easier for a lot of programmers.
The transition to 64 bit address space is not nearly so helpful to so many people at
this point. The processors are actually ahead of the user base and so much so that
Microsoft has been taking its dear time coming out with a 64 version of Windows for
AMD's 64 bit chip. There just is not a huge demand for bigger address spaces. Most
machines are shipping with 256 megs default and on web sites of Dell, HP, and similar
places you can get a desktop PC with a max of 1 gig.
The transition to Win32 similarly made life easier in part because NT was so much
more stable than Win 3.x and even Win95 was better than Win3.x. But I don't see the
really compelling advantages to .NET. I don't have lots of annoying problems with the
existing OSs that would make me want to upgrade API or OS.
New OS versions have become less compelling in general. I know lots of people like
myself who develop on NT, Win2k, and XP who see little advantage to XP. Oh, sure, you
can point to some advantages. But the steps have gotten smaller and less compelling.
Mostly I get annoyed because MS moves stuff around and one has to go clicking around
to find something that one learned where to find on NT at one place that is now
somewhere else. Why is workgroup name no longer under networks? Stuff like that costs
me time.
The same is happening with many classes of applications. Years ago new word
processors version stopped seeming like incredibly compelling improvements over
previous versions. Most people who have moved from Word 97 to 2k to the latest would
be hard put to tell you what is so great about the later versions.
People paying thru the nose: My customers do NOT care what language or API set the
apps I sell to them are written in. They just want me to make the apps work better
for the types of operations they find could be improved in some fashion.
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Peter Agricola wrote:
Quote
"Dave Jewell"wrote:

>Yeah, but it's also very obvious that the Win32 API is going to be with us
>for some time to come.


Because this API won't be extended anymore your old development tool will
do.
Peter, Do you live a charmed life where you don't periodically run into bugs in BCB
that cost you a day or two?
Or do you just not use BCB much any more?
Quote


Peter


 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Quote
Some of the previous transitions offered much more
compelling advantages. ...
Agreed.
Quote
People paying thru the nose: My customers do NOT care
what language or API set the apps I sell to them are
written in. They just want me to make the apps work better
for the types of operations they find could be improved in
some fashion.
Not what I meant.
The early adopters are willing to pay well for software for their new toys.
If you embrace the new toys then you may benefit from that.
Quote
Randall Parker wrote in message
news:401069ef$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
>People paying thru the nose: My customers do NOT care
>what language or API set the apps I sell to them are
>written in. They just want me to make the apps work better
>for the types of operations they find could be improved in
>some fashion.

Not what I meant.

The early adopters are willing to pay well for software for their new toys.
If you embrace the new toys then you may benefit from that.
Ed, that works for, say, a new game machine. It also works for system utilities that
are going to, say, use a new OS feature like themes or some other new OS feature
(e.g. Stardock has got to really get into new OS features for their desktop
management stuff). It also works for, say, a whole new type of device driver that MS
comes out with for graphics that gamer app writers can jump on. Ditto for a new type
of instruction set extension like when Intel brought out their MMX instructions.
But most apps aren't going to change all that much in appearance and behavior just
because they are written to .NET rather than to Win32 (except perhaps for being
slower). Also, whether an app is written on top of .NET is not going to be a selling
point for most app buyers. They just want to know if it runs on their version of
Windows whatever that version is.
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:18:34 -0500, "Ed Mulroy [TeamB]"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Therefore you are annoyed at Borland because they are not going to support
the new Win32 stuff where there will be no new Win32 stuff and annoyed at
Borland because they are supporting the new .NET stuff which is where all
the new Windows stuff will be. So Borland tools will continue to support
the Win32 stuff that exists but will not be enhanced as well as the new
stuff that comes out which Microsoft has said will be .NET. Because Borland
is providing support for Win32 and .NET you are angry and are considering
switching to some other vendor because their tools will provide support for
Win32 and .NET.

Don't you see some glitches in that reasoning?

. Ed
I think people are annoyed because it is not clear what Borland's
attitude towards Win32 is. Microsoft will continue to support Win32
in Visual C++ (now and in future versions). I can't say I know what
Borland will do with C++ or Delphi on this front (will Win32 targeting
versions be different, lagging applications or will they ever coexist
in a single program?). Borland has a clear advantage over Microsoft
in the Win32 space: VCL+Win32 is better than raw Win32 for many
applications. That Win32 will be more static than it has been in the
past does not mean that development tools targeting Win32 must cease
development and innovation along with Win32.
For .NET Borland has no such advantage. Microsoft is investing
heavily in .NET, and in the .NET space has many VCL like features.
Borland can't ignore .NET, and they haven't. But they also can't
afford to get in a .NET competition where they are aping Microsoft
(using the same languages and class libraries) with more expensive but
no more capable products. It seems to me that a clear transition
strategy and a development tool that targets both .NET and Win32
(using a framework such as VCL) would be a good move for Borland.
I would look for improved and enhanced support for Win32 and for
Borland to deliver an innovation that is to .NET what the VCL was to
Win32. I am increasingly concerned about the potential for either of
these things to occur.
Chris Hill
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

Re:Re: Move to Java or .NET advice requested?

"Randall Parker" wrote:
Quote
Peter, Do you live a charmed life where you don't periodically run into
bugs in BCB
that cost you a day or two?

Or do you just not use BCB much any more?
I do use BCB5 every day. I've learned to work around the bugs. This has
costed me an awfull lot of time indeed :-( .
Peter