Board index » cppbuilder » Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006


2007-01-12 01:56:31 AM
cppbuilder113
Is there any reason for me to renew my support agreement for C++ Builder
2006? I am in the middle of porting software from BCB 6.0 to C++ Builder
2006 - and have not required any support to date. I assume I will still be
able to get all updates without the support agreement. If that is true, can
anyone offer a reason for me to purchase it once again?
Thanks for your assistance.
M Weingarden
 
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

"M Weingarden" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Is there any reason for me to renew my support agreement for C++
Builder 2006? I am in the middle of porting software from BCB 6.0 to
C++ Builder 2006 - and have not required any support to date. I
assume I will still be able to get all updates without the support
agreement. If that is true, can anyone offer a reason for me to
purchase it once again?

Thanks for your assistance.

M Weingarden

CodeGear will no doubt try to sell you on the support contract, on the
premise that you will receive regular updates under the contract rather
than having to re-buy each time.
However, as most users know, this SA program requires a huge leap of
faith. Until now, buying SA for C++Builder was a waste of money because
the tool itself was largely moribund -- there *were* no updates to be had
for the SA period, so it was money wasted. I still think that BDS 2006
purchasers should get a free upgrade to BDS 2007 (or at least the C++
SKU) -- CodeGear is trying to rebuild a lot trust among their developers,
and making people pay a bunch of money for an SA agreement that they may
not even use (or get any value from) seems a rather questionable way to
do that.
Until we have a better idea of where the C++ tool is going in terms of
features and timeframe, I'd recommend *against* entering into any kind of
SA agreement. But that's just me. (SA is probably more worthwhile for
Delphi.)
Regards,
mr_organic
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

In article <45a67a45$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"M Weingarden" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Is there any reason for me to renew my support agreement for C++ Builder
2006? I am in the middle of porting software from BCB 6.0 to C++ Builder
2006 - and have not required any support to date. I assume I will still be
able to get all updates without the support agreement. If that is true, can
anyone offer a reason for me to purchase it once again?
Renewing your SA is probably cheaper than letting it expire and then
buying the upgrade.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
 

{smallsort}

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

M Weingarden wrote:
Quote
Is there any reason for me to renew my support agreement for C++ Builder
2006?
Only worthwhile if you are using Delphi.
The C++ space has been effectively abandoned to MS.
Very unwise to start new projects with C++ builder.
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

David Dean [CodeGear] wrote:
Quote
Renewing your SA is probably cheaper than letting it expire and then
buying the upgrade.
IF there is a worthwhile upgrade.
It is cheaper and safer to crossgrade to MS VC++
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

Vachel wrote:
Quote
M Weingarden wrote:
>Is there any reason for me to renew my support agreement for C++
>Builder 2006?

Only worthwhile if you are using Delphi.
The C++ space has been effectively abandoned to MS.
Nonsense. They are actively working on it and even hired new people for
C++Builder.
C++Builder has been treated very badly. But since the decision was made
to make it part of BDS2006, and also to bring two Turbo C++ products
(free Explorer and paid Professional), their direction has changed to
the advantage of C++Builder.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.de/
"Computers make it easier to do a lot of things, but most of the
things they make it easier to do don't need to be done."
-- Andy Rooney.
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
C++Builder has been treated very badly.
Yes.
That is true.
Quote
But since the decision was made
to make it part of BDS2006, and also to bring two Turbo C++ products
(free Explorer and paid Professional), their direction has changed to
the advantage of C++Builder.
This "change in direction" is marketing speak and has borne no visible
fruit. Their compiler is still non-conformant, years behind the rest of
the industry and cannot compile Boost.
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

In article <45a6cfc6$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Vachel <vachel@spamnot>
wrote:
Quote
This "change in direction" is marketing speak and has borne no visible
fruit.
What do you consider to be visible fruit?
Quote
Their compiler is still non-conformant
Better than 94% conformance, IIRC. (I do plan on posting the actual
numbers, I've just been busy)
Quote
cannot compile Boost.
That is an exaggeration. Many of the boost libraries do compile. We
are working with boost contributors and are not going to stagnate.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

David Dean [CodeGear] wrote:
Quote
>Their compiler is still non-conformant
Better than 94% conformance, IIRC. (I do plan on posting the actual
numbers, I've just been busy)
ie: Borland/Codegear's product has the worst conformance of any
commercial compiler. Even VS 2003 was 98 % compliant !
Quote
>cannot compile Boost.
That is an exaggeration. Many of the boost libraries do compile.
ie: many dont compile.
VS 2003 compiles LOKI, BOOST, and BLITZ and has been able to do so for
over 4 years.
I repeat, Borland have effectively abandoned the C++ space.
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Vachel <vachel@spamnot>
wrote:
Quote
I repeat, Borland have effectively abandoned the C++ space.
But you didn't answer my question. What actions could CodeGear take
that you would consider "visible fruit"?
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

Quick answer....
It's bull#$%^ that an end user has to write code to fix slow compiles and
pulish it on the newsgroups. It's bull#$%^ that Borland did not do a darn
thing to the community to address the issue.
1) First fruit for the comminity would be to fix your bugs and communicate
with us about getting the items fixed.
2) Release EBF's, a Sybase term, for Emergency Bug Fixes once a month. Even
if only one bug was fixed.
3) Don't release a product and then stop supporting it. Pick the products
that you are going to make money from and stick with them with items #1 and
#2. I am a C/C++ programmer. If I want .NET I will use Visual Studio.
Don't sell me .NET products. I am looking for Windows/Linux 32/64 bit
programming tools. Thats what I want to buy. I hate other people run time
libraries and don't use products that require them.
"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >, Vachel <vachel@spamnot>
wrote:

>I repeat, Borland have effectively abandoned the C++ space.

But you didn't answer my question. What actions could CodeGear take
that you would consider "visible fruit"?

--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Bob Piskac" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Quick answer....
Thank you for your answers. I think that we have made some progress
in these areas, and that we will demonstrate further progress as time
goes by. CodeGear is very focused on our customers and their needs.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

Vachel wrote:
Quote
The C++ space has been effectively abandoned to MS.
Borland did abandon it for a while. But Borland rethought and reversed their decision.
Whether Borland can made big enough strides with their C++ tool to get back into the
race remains to be seen. I think we'll have a good idea in a couple of months.
Quote
Very unwise to start new projects with C++ builder.
Very unwise? If you want to write a Win32 GUI app with lots of controls libs it still
seems like the best choice.
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

"Vachel" <vachel@spamnot>wrote in message
Quote
IF there is a worthwhile upgrade.
It is cheaper and safer to crossgrade to MS VC++
What a stupid thing to say. The cost of crossgrading to MS VC++ depends
entirely on the project itself. If it uses a lot of the proprietary
extensions to the language and relies heavily on the VCL it would be very
expensive to crossgrade, as all of that code would have to be redone.
 

Re:Support Agreement for C++ Builder 2006

Bob Piskac wrote:
Quote
2) Release EBF's, a Sybase term, for Emergency Bug Fixes once a
month. Even if only one bug was fixed.
I think this is VERY interesting, because it implies that the
subsequent releases of hotfixes/bugfixes is planned, scheduled, and
costed. Only the content of the hotfixes is unknown in advance. It
means that the question about bugs becomes "can we fix this bug in our
next hotfix?", which is an easier question than "do we need to issue a
hotfix to address this?".
- Roddy
--