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

2004-01-23 03:11:05 PM
cppbuilder30
"Dave Jewell"wrote:
do not believe or have trust in what's in the first letter why would you
have trust in another letter?
A change in the management team doesn't always mean a new direction is
choosen. If J.P. le Blanc is sacked I can understand why. But that doesn't
mean Borland will quit C++-tool development. I think the direction with CBX
is exciting and for a cross-platform development tool the Windows.NET
platform is to big to ignore.
Peter
 

"Peter Agricola" wrote:
trouble than before. I recently used the ClassExplorer, wich is turned off
of course, for a whole hour without troubles ;-) .
Peter
 

"Randall Parker" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:401069ef$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
little segments to worry about all the time -- I think it's been years since
I've even thought about segments! Moving to 32-bits was like a breath of
fresh air. But there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to move to
64-bits right now.
new look and feel, pretty new colour scheme, etc, in order to make end-users
feel good about how much money they've just spent. ;-)
Dave
 

{smallsort}

"Chris Hill" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
there are still several years of productive life in Win32 programming) and
instead move 100% into .NET dev-tools (where they *dont* have any clear
advantages at this point) then Microsoft will be laughing themselves silly.
Dave
 

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
of people. :-)
direction. But in this case, we have to remember that (a) a *lot* of
top-level people have just been replaced, including most of the execs. (b)
JP has been fired, who was heading up the C++ team. (c) Borland have been
pretty darn quiet about their C++ plans over the last few weeks. (d) CBX
in its present form was not properly thought-out before it was launched.
Taken together, all these factors suggest to me that the previous Open
Letter isn't worth a damn, and that we won't really know what's happening
until (as I've already said) the dust has settled and the new management
have some time to decide what to do.
You say "But that doesn't mean Borland will quit C++-tool development" and I
agree with you. I very much hope that Borland will still be committed to
C++ development. There are exciting things happening regarding Microsoft's
commitment to C++ and I hope Borland will get that message and follow suit.
For what it's worth, I think the management shakeup is a good thing: it
makes me optimistic that the new plan will be better than the old.
Dave
 

"Dave Jewell" wrote:
your several years of productive life in Win32 programming.
Borland has to catch up with .NET. There is no one starting a (large) Win32
project these days. So there is no one to sell BCB anymore. The fact that it
is the best Win32 development environment is irrelevant on .NET. No one buys
BCB for maintenance when the program isn't written in BCB. When it is
written in BCB there is no need to buy it...
If Borland doesn't provide a Managed C++ tool Microsoft will be laughing
themselves silly.
Peter
 

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
that, I doubt that the new functionality in FCL will be *entirely* hidden
from inquisitive Win32 developers..... ;-)
Dave
 

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:14:04 +0100, "Peter Agricola"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Visual C++ will continue to support Win32 development along with the
ever expanding .NET support. Microsoft is not at the point with Win32
where they tell you to use a previous version of their development
tools.
different reason. Borland can adopt as many .NET technologies as it
wants, but at the end of the day they must provide a compelling reason
to choose their tools over Microsoft's (VCL provides a reason for
Win32 developers). Catching up with .NET is not an easy thing to do
given the resources Microsoft has to develop it, but parity is not
enough. In some dimension a Borland tool must be clearly superior to
succeed, just look at Borland's past success and compare to the
competition.
Borland has been successful with JBuilder, but that is because there
was a need for a Java IDE and Sun didn't ship a powerful development
environment when JBuilder was entering the market. There is a
different situation with Microsoft and .NET.
As for no reason to buy a future version of BCB, I suspect if Borland
moved BCB up to the same VCL level as Delphi, included a new compiler,
and worked to improve the quality of the IDE there would be many
interested customers. And placing .NET and Win32 support in the same
product (not bundling an old version) would also help smooth the
transition (this way you can buy both the proven technology and fund
Borland's future .NET efforts).
Chris Hill
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

"Chris Hill" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
supported by VS.NET.
Microsoft have a history of luring competitors into a position where they
spend precious resources on "The Big New Thing" and then find themselves
shafted. Like OS/2 for instance. I'm certainly not saying that .NET is a
cunning plan designed solely to lure Borland to their doom..... :-) I'm
just saying that if Borland have any sense, they will keep their options
open.
coming back to is this: if customers didn't go for Borland tools at a time
when Delphi/BCB was *far* superior to what Microsoft was offering, why on
Earth should customers go for Borland tools now? There is really only one
answer, but Borland won't accept it.
VB.NET, etc, and you can target Win32 or .NET. I feel sure that Borland
could create an integrated IDE capable of targeting Win32 and .NET, and
containing integrated support for C++ and Object Pascal and (in the .NET
case) VB.NET and C#.
Dave
 

"Dave Jewell" wrote:
these days. Especially not with all embedded software devices wich are
comingon the market.
integrated VCL-designer. There will be one for VCL for .NET.
Why would one learn as many languages as are available for .NET? The
advantage of .NET is that I can use a piece of code someone else has written
in his favourite language, not in C++. Something we had with Delphi code but
Delphists not with our C++ VCL code. (or can I use only an assembly written
in another language?)
Peter
 

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
adressing it with CF. I suspect it will be a few years yet before
smartphones become the "{*word*109}" computing platform. ;-)
Dave
 

Not if its buggy. Or at least not if patches for the bugs are still going to be years
apart or never.
But yes of course, its a good direction.
Duane Hebert wrote:

"Dave Jewell" wrote:
CBX are targeting the phonemarket already with support for Symbian. I doubt
we will see a lot of 'MS-phones'.
Peter
 

Chris makes a good point... But maybe leaves out the fact that M$ is only
charging $1000 for C#, C++, J#, VB etc. .NET in one studio. It is RAD, and seems
to be a Borland knock off. Add to that Borland C# came out after M$ C#, and looks
the same, so Borland looks like the follower. The price does not, Borland is
clearly the "leader". What happend to getting what you pay for? Borland has to
add value to charge, (look for yourself in your area), what amounts to at least 8
times as much, from the perspective that Delphi is seperate from C++ Builder is
seperate from Builder X and so on for J Builder and each are at least double M$
single product price. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but last I checked, M$ puts the
current version of each in its studio, Borland puts antiquated professional
versions of Delphi in its enterprise level C++ product; and futher makes a
mockery of the very definition of the term "Studio", which heretofore meant
multiple concurrent versions of multiple languages in one box that work well when
used together.
For us the price was justified because BCB5 ran circles around VC++ 5 and 6 for
plant floor operations that require GUI and low level apps, and we only use one
language, not resorting to VB top ends.
Moving on with whatever comes out will require similar added value. We have
purchased the M$ studio after having weighed C#Builder with it, on an even par
for the same apps, and found nothing to justify the added cost. We further
recieved -- for free, if you will -- VC++.NET and VB.NET. For our plant floor
operations, .NET is still to slow, so much advancement will be needed before we
upgrade BCB5 with something else -- We also saw little value in upgrading to
BCB6, except XML support (my boss would not agree that that alone justified the
upgrade).
When something comes out that gives us economic advantage, we will buy it. We
will continue to use BCB5 till then, for Plant floor applications, and M$ Studio
for web/PDA support.
Chris Hill wrote:

Amen. If C++Builder's VCL was up to Delphi 7 when we were evaluating BCB6, which
was well after Delphi 7 came out, those features would have made the sale, we
would be using BCB7 as long as BCB6 bugs were minimized. We just could not sell
upgrading from BCB5 to 6 as it was.
Chris Hill wrote: