Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...


2003-12-01 07:09:49 AM
cppbuilder106
What is your point?
"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
On 29-Nov-03, Bupp Phillips said:

>Borland did.

Really? I know of no country in which they are empowered to *force*
anyone to buy their products.

--
Bill
--------

"Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it
public property." -- Walter Williams
 
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Pete Fraser wrote:
Quote
2k-XP: questionable upgrade - lots of pretty pictures but why else? and lots
of businesses say this also.
XP is way more stable. I'm yet to see a crash that I didn't provoke...
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

"Peter Agricola" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

"Bupp Phillips" wrote:
>Yes, I saw what happened to the VB community,

Because _you_ don't like VB Microsoft wasn't screwing the largest
community
on Windows?? Have you tried to explain that to a just screwed VB
programmer?
I didn't say MS didn't{*word*222}VB, I'm just not concerned about VB.
Quote
So is the VCL Borlands own creation....
Except MS hasn't changed it's minds on frameworks for quite some time now.
Quote
The framework ( by far the biggest part of .NET) in C#. The runtime is
written in C++, but it's possible that it is more C than C++.
ok, now you are getting "NIT-PICKY", since C is a subset of C++, when
referring to C++ it also covers C.
Quote
There has been a lack of bugfixes in BCB, but that's not enough to say
that
we are screwed. They promised to change their attitude and when you read
the
CBX groups you'll notice something is already changing. So why do you feel
screwed as a C++ developer by Borland?
I think you just pointed out some of them. No bugfixes, when/if they place
the VCL in CBX, are you going you buy version 1.0 and try to convert your
applications?
What will happen when bugs show up in CBX and Borland decides not to fix
those either? Will you still be running around saying "I'm not getting
screwed as Borland Customer" or will you wake-up and finally see that
Borland treats their C++ customers like {*word*99}...it may take some longer than
others, but I have awakened, and I've had it with them!
Quote
What is different on the change from MFC to WinForms and from VCL for
Win32
to VCL for .NET, except the former is much harder to do.
This is new information to me, I have not seen that on Microsoft's roadmap.
Can you provide a link to where it says that MFC is being changed to
WinForms?
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

I've never had a crash on Win2K.
XP looks to child-ish in my opinion.
"OBones" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Pete Fraser wrote:

>2k-XP: questionable upgrade - lots of pretty pictures but why else? and
lots
>of businesses say this also.
XP is way more stable. I'm yet to see a crash that I didn't provoke...

 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Bupp Phillips wrote:
Quote
I've never had a crash on Win2K.
I had, but that was hardware related. And it dissapeared as soon as I put XP
Quote
XP looks to child-ish in my opinion.
I completely agree and the first thing I did is to change the theme back
to a Classic Windows look. And amazingly, it runs faster this way...
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Quote
What is your point?
I think his point is no one forced you to buy a product from a company that
has screwed you over.
I don't know why I even came to these newsgroups. All that's ever on these
and mbs is people complaining. You'd swear there's no product out there that
has happy customers.
Sigh.
Oh well, at least I found out that CBX doesn't have the VCL so I should
avoid it.
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

So are you saying I picked Borland over 10 years ago, knowing that they were
going to do this (screw me)?
I don't think so.
I once loved Borland, but I must now take emotions out of the picture and
think about how to continue to generate me some money and keep my customers
happy.
"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
On 30-Nov-03, Bupp Phillips said:

>What is your point?

That you weren't forced, contrary to your earlier claim. If you made a
bad decision, so be it, but it was yours.

--
Bill
--------

"Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it
public property." -- Walter Williams
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

"Bupp Phillips" wrote:>
Quote
>So is the VCL Borlands own creation....

Except MS hasn't changed it's minds on frameworks for quite some time now.
Huh??
Microsoft didn't have a decent framework until WinForms. In Longhorn they
make it an integral part of the OS. For the first time Windows will have an
object oriented API.
Quote
>The framework ( by far the biggest part of .NET) in C#. The runtime is
>written in C++, but it's possible that it is more C than C++.

ok, now you are getting "NIT-PICKY", since C is a subset of C++, when
referring to C++ it also covers C.
C and C++ are two distinct languages. The C99 standard isn't covered by the
C++ standard and probably never will. There are instead voices to ged rid of
the C inheritance in C++. In any case programming in C is completely
different from programming in C++.
Quote
>So why do you feel screwed as a C++ developer by Borland?

I think you just pointed out some of them. No bugfixes,
Not enough to feel screwed.
Quote
when/if they place the VCL in CBX, are you going you buy version 1.0 and
try to convert your applications?
It won't be in version 1.0. When it is in the next version it is probably
the easiest way to get my apps on .NET. But I still don't know how to
compile my Borland/VCL C++ code to .NET. Compiling my VCL for Win32 to VCL
for .NET components is nice but I have also to compile my logic, which make
use of these components, to .NET preferable without rewriting it to managed
C++. When I have to rewrite that code it is maybe better to rewrite my
components to WinForms too.
Quote
What will happen when bugs show up in CBX and Borland decides not to fix
those either? Will you still be running around saying "I'm not getting
screwed as Borland Customer" or will you wake-up and finally see that
Borland treats their C++ customers like {*word*99}...it may take some longer
than
others, but I have awakened, and I've had it with them!
I still use BCB5. It does what I want, now I have learned to work around the
bugs in the IDE. I have never upgraded to BCB6 because it brought me not
enough. I haven't bought CBX because it doesn't do what I need, but I keep
an eye on it's development. Maybe one day I find it is useful for me. Of
course I am looking at their attitude, but they promised to do it better
and I can see changes already. But I also realize that Borland will never
get the Nobel-prize for PR so my expectations aren't that high. But when I
don't use proprietary stuff from Borland I can change to another toolchain
very easily. This seems very difficult to do with VS.
Quote
>What is different on the change from MFC to WinForms and from VCL for
Win32
>to VCL for .NET, except the former is much harder to do.

This is new information to me, I have not seen that on Microsoft's
roadmap.
Can you provide a link to where it says that MFC is being changed to
WinForms?
It isn't being changed to WinForms. But MFC is Win32 and so becoming
obsolete in the next OS's. Of course people say that Win32 program's still
can be run, just like DOS applications still can be run. But every 'DOS
application still around' is rewritten to Win32. So when your Win32
application will survive the next OS change it most likely will be rewritten
to .NET. All your MFC code has then to be rewritten to WinForms. I did a
quick search on MS site for MFC and all the articles were refering to VC6,
so it seems to be deprecated in VS.NET already.
Peter
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

G.B.R. < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
[...] I noticed that Boost regression
suite shows consistently better score for VC7.1 than for Comeau. Whether
it's a problem of supplied standard library or not I don't know.
The page at
www.boost.org/status/compiler_status.html
says:
"These tables are not a good indication of a
particular compiler's compliance with the C++
Standard. The Boost libraries often contain
workarounds which mask compiler deficiencies."
I'm pretty sure you knew that.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

G.B.R. < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
[...]
You may have had a point 2 years ago, but not at this point. Neither VC7.1
nor Comeau require any workarounds.
As VC7.1 has bugs, I suspect that it needs
workarounds. (Whether they can easily be
seen due to a 'BOOST_VC71_WORKAROUND' macro
is another question.)
Quote
[...]
>compilers out there that equal or superior to MSVC on terms of
>standards conformance.

Just name one other than Comeau, which I agree may be suffering from a bad
standard library.
GCC finds quite a few issues that VC just
accepts. (Especially spurious 'typename's.)
So does CW. As Intel's compiler uses an EDG
front end, they have no chance but to be
closer to the standard than many others.
Just as BCCX. :)
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Peter Agricola < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
"Andre Kaufmann"wrote:
>And the statement that standard C++ cannot be compiled to .IL is
>definitely wrong.
>Im even now able with VS 2003 to compile .IL code and using standard C++.

Is this modern C++ or 'C with classes'?
I think there's a lot of FUD spread about
that. You can have VC emit IL code from
std C++ programs by applying a switch. It
is just another backend.
Now, in order to make full use of .NET, you
will have to accept a couple of extensions.
However, I don't see that much difference
to using the VCL.
Quote
[...]
Peter
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Peter Agricola < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
[...]
>And by the way...what do you think .NET is written in....I'll give you a
>hint, it's not VB.

The framework ( by far the biggest part of .NET) in C#. The runtime is
written in C++, but it's possible that it is more C than C++.
Just about every application MS sells is
compiled using VC, no matter whether the
code is C or C++. So they really have huge
interest in keeping VC alive, well, and
bugfree. That's pretty convincing, guess.
Quote
[...]
>Borland has screwed me for the last time!

There has been a lack of bugfixes in BCB, but that's not enough to say that
we are screwed. [...]
Um, I think he was refering to the fact
that OWL1/OWL2 already wasn't that pretty
of a transition and that OWL2 later was
just abandoned and replace by the totaly
incompatible VCL. Together with CBX coming
with no VCL support at all, some add this
up to three.
Quote
What is different on the change from MFC to WinForms and from VCL for Win32
to VCL for .NET, except the former is much harder to do.
That MFC is still alive, supported, fixed,
extended, and clearely said to be so for a
couple more years.
Quote
[...]
Peter
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Hendrik Schober wrote:
Quote
Now, in order to make full use of .NET, you
will have to accept a couple of extensions.
However, I don't see that much difference
to using the VCL.

Which is the main reason I'm not keen on .Net as a solution to not using
the VCL. My main reason for not wanting the VCL is that we aren't
dealing with pure C++ objects so wx looks better from this point of view
for us.
Thanks
Russell
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Russell Hind < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Hendrik Schober wrote:
>Now, in order to make full use of .NET, you
>will have to accept a couple of extensions.
>However, I don't see that much difference
>to using the VCL.

Which is the main reason I'm not keen on .Net as a solution to not using
the VCL. My main reason for not wanting the VCL is that we aren't
dealing with pure C++ objects so wx looks better from this point of view
for us.
I didn't want to convert you to VC. :)
My point was, that you can do std C++
and target the .NET platform. I had to
admit, though, that at some level you
cannot avoid using extensions.
But I don't see any reason why a lib
like wx, which shields you from what's
necessary to do Win32, wouldn't be able
to shield you from .NET.
Quote
Thanks

Russell
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

"Hendrik Schober" wrote:
Quote
Russell Hind < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>Hendrik Schober wrote:
>>Now, in order to make full use of .NET, you
>>will have to accept a couple of extensions.
>>However, I don't see that much difference
>>to using the VCL.
>
>Which is the main reason I'm not keen on .Net as a solution to not using
>the VCL. My main reason for not wanting the VCL is that we aren't
>dealing with pure C++ objects so wx looks better from this point of view
>for us.

I didn't want to convert you to VC. :)
My point was, that you can do std C++
and target the .NET platform. I had to
admit, though, that at some level you
cannot avoid using extensions.
But I don't see any reason why a lib
like wx, which shields you from what's
necessary to do Win32, wouldn't be able
to shield you from .NET.
In the current .NET it is possible to have managed and unmanaged C++ in one
file. The compiler puts some extra information in the MSIL file and the CLR
will take care of it, if I have a correct understanding of the It Just Works
(IJW) technologie. As long as .NET is a layer on top of Win32 both managed
and unmanaged code ultimatily call the Win32 API. I don't know how this
works when managed code doesn't call the Win32 API but talks directly to the
HW/drivers as expected in Longhorn. Managed C++ is changed to C++/CLI
because they ran in trouble with managed C++. What kind of trouble? Then I
come back on the start of this thread, I don't have enough information to
make a choice between Microsoft tools and Borland tools. I like to be
independent from a supplier (standard C++) but I don't know how well I can
target .NET in that case wich I also like to do because it is the most
important desktop OS.
Peter