David Dean wrote:
Quote
In article <43f0f7b4$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Edward Diener < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>What does BCB2006 but me that BCB6 does not have except for a smoother
>IDE.
Hundreds of compiler bugs have been fixed. I agree that there are
plenty left to be fixed, but you're throwing out the baby with the bath
water if you skip the upgrade and stick with an old version.
I already have BCB6, and have no need to upgrade anything.
Quote
>Also, unless you are living in a
>C++ shell, you must know that VS Studio 2005 is out and it is a very
>good environment for either straight C++ programming and of course for
>.NET C++/CLI programming, with a highly compliant C++ compiler.
Maybe that is why we can't agree. I cannot stand VS Studio 2005. I do
not see it as a viable replacement for BCB, and I have no interest in
.NET.
Good for you. Everyone has the perfect right to use whatever they wish
for enjoyment and success in life.
Quote
If you're not using BCB any more, why stick around here?
You have a great deal of presumption to think you know what software I
use ? As far as "sticking around here" I will speak the truth whenever I
am interested in doing so, even if all others disagree. The truth,
despite your propaganda about 'hundreds of bugs fixed', is that Borland
has done an abominable job supporting their C++ programmers, and I see
no reason to even consider supporting them with my money unless they
actually change that. My comments in speaking on this NG is an effort to
get Borland to better support me and other C++ programmers and you will
certainly not stop me from making them.
It is people like you who have allowed Borland to do such a bad job with
C++ Builder and still feel good about marketing such a deficient
product. You see all those bugs fixed by Borland, after 3-5 years of
doing absolutely nothing about them, and ignore all those bugs still not
fixed after 3-5 years of doing absolutely nothing about them. I am not
nearly so enthralled by that track record as you are, and would frankly
be thoroughly ashamed if I put out any software with that same sort of
long-term neglect.
I am not here to put Borland down but rather get them on their feet
again regarding C++ and their own support of it. That can only be done
by being honest, not soft-soaping their failings. Nonetheless it is a
free world and if you are happy with the state of C++ Builder 2006, and
are not worried, or affected, about the C++ compiler bugs still not
addressed, and the continued lack of C++ compliance in a number of
areas, and if you have no need to consider programming in areas which
C++ Builder 2006 does not support such as .NET, I can understand why you
would spend your money to buy it, whatever your personal reason is for
doing so.