Board index » cppbuilder » Re: The C++Builder 2006/Borland Developer Studio 2006 trial is availablefordownload

2006-02-18 12:51:36 AM
cppbuilder50
David Erbas-White wrote:
application? provide me a scenario, because there isn't one where this
could happen accidentally. You would have to deliberately call interop
code.
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it's not here, it's not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB] wrote:
it makes it easy for a mistake to trickle through the system where some
.NET functionality is required in what the developer believes is a
non-.NET program. Compiling it on the development machine works,
running it on a non-.NET machine does not. Yes, you can more examine
the output to see if that's the case, but there are too many times that
mistakes like this have occurred in the past for anyone to trust it.
If you don't have .NET on the development machine (i.e., as the Borland
folks were developing the IDE) then you KNOW that it isn't going to be
necessary for operation.
David Erbas-White
 

David Erbas-White wrote:
that, for example, if the IDE uses .NET to display a file chooser dialog
somewhere, your non-graphical console program might somehow have a file
chooser pop up randomly in the middle of it somewhere simply because the
IDE has file choosers. If the IDE is implemented in Delphi, that
doesn't turn your C++ programs into Delphi. If they IDE is implemented
using .NET, that doesn't turn your C++ programs into .NET either. I
don't get it.
--
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]
 

{smallsort}

In article <43f6015d$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
David Erbas-White < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
separate from the win32 ones. When I installed, I didn't install either
.net personality.
--
-David
Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.
 

David Erbas-White wrote:
the development machine, because it installs runtime packages that the
average users don't have, and you can't test whether your installation
is complete or not. Realistically, you just can't avoid having a virtual
machine or a completely clean test computer to try your product before
shipping it.
In fact, I'm 100% sure that a C++Builder application can't have .NET
dependencies without writing a DLL for it in Visual C++. However, I can
easily write a C++Builder application that requires borlandmm.dll and
vcl60.dll, which I may forget to include in my installation package, and
I won't be able to tell that by testing it on my development machine.
Tom
 

At 18:05:20, 17.02.2006, David Erbas-White wrote:
functionality from a non-.NET application. The IDE uses .NET for
refactoring and some other functionality.
IOW, such mistakes won't happen. Interfacing with .NET requires conscious
effort, and is not that easy.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.de/
"A friendship founded on business is better than a business founded on
friendship."
- John D. Rockefeller (1874-1960)
 

Tamas Demjen wrote:
executable for BCB programs.
David Erbas-White
 

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Win32/C++/Delphi side of things to be shored up *first* , before they started adding in
all that C# and .Net jazz. Now we have loads of stuff that doesn't work. I really do not
understand why we cannot have what we want from Borland. MS are not offering us it either.
VS Studio when all we want is C++. Come on folks, listen to us for a change.
--
Mark Jacobs
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
 

At 11:22:34, 20.02.2006, Mark Jacobs wrote:
actually the first language to be used in the Galileo IDE, as C#Builder 1
(which IMO was simply a byproduct of the development of Delphi 8).
I still don't understand the (IMO irrational) fear of some people to
install anything related to .NET.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.de/
"The artist is nothing without the gift, but the gift is nothing without
work."
-- Emile Zola (1840-1902)
 

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
can still produce Win32 executables from BDS2006 that would also run on Win95, but my
point is simply that there is still so much wrong with the Win32 VCL C++ support in the
IDE, I wish they'd never bothered with .NET and C# until they had fixed these other
problems. Because of market pressure, they didn't do what I wanted. The more Microsoft
proprietary technology support they bung in BDS2006, the more bugs and unforeseen
repercussions they have to deal with. They already knew that one piece of Microsoft
proprietary technology (Win32 MFC API) was a nightmare to handle, so why launch into yet
more application frameworks that are even harder to get right, before they've even sorted
out Win32 MFC? As far as technologically-positive motivation is concerned, money sucks.
--
Mark Jacobs
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
 

At 15:25:52, 20.02.2006, Mark Jacobs wrote:
can't. And I'd expect a developer to have at least a useful OS, and not a
"toy" OS like Win95, 98 or ME.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.de/
"I hope life isn't a big joke ... because I don't get it." -- Unknown
 

At 15:25:52, 20.02.2006, Mark Jacobs wrote:
not about on what platforms your programs will run. No one says you must
write .NET apps, only that you need .NET to install BDS2006. You can
write apps that will run on Win95 with it, no problem. The IDE will
however not run on 95, 98 or ME.
And I don't understand the irrational, unfounded fear of developers who
refuse to install .NET, even if they might need it for development.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.de/
"I'll sleep when I'm dead."
- Warren Zevon
 

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
'luddite' attitude given the nature of their job. Aren't software
engineers supposed to be working at the leading edge of one of the most
rapidly evolving areas of modern technology?
The question of developing for .NET is one thing but for a software
developer not to have already installed .NET and at least played with
it a little is astonishing. Even if it doesn't take off for a while (if
ever) it's worth getting to grips with it to get an insight into what
the world's most influential software vendor is thinking right now.
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
However, if I am trying to debug code that only shows problems when
running on Win95, I would certainly like to run my de{*word*81} in the
native OS!
By relying on .NET framework for the IDE, Borland have had to choose
between supporting the majority of their users going forwards, vs. the
debugging needs of those supporting their own customers who, for
whatever reason, cannot upgrade.
It was inevitable this point would be reached at some point, just as we
don't easily support Win31 apps today. When back-support comes at the
expense of eliminiting progress for the masses, at some point it has to
give.
There remains a legitimate need for the feature though. And for those
customers affected, they do need to balance the new/improved features
and bug fixes vs. their ability to support their own customers in the
new IDE.
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)
 

At 11:36:53, 21.02.2006, AlisdairM wrote:
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.de/
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself."
-- Peter O'Toole.