Board index » cppbuilder » If Borland is going to release a service pak or version rev

2004-05-07 08:25:07 AM
cppbuilder9
I would like to suggest that if Borland is going to rev BCB or release a service pak
that they would:
1) Tell is about this in advance so that we can go file QC reports on any bugs people
had despaired of even bothering to report.
2) Do a beta to let people check it very thoroughly for bugs.
3) If there are design and fix issues they are batting about and are undecided they
show float the ideas by us here in a forum to get some puhlic reaction in advance.
Basically, put us in the loop on this...
 

"Randall Parker" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
they may just decide its worthwhile to make a new update anyway.
Gambit
 

Remy,
Borland has done a very fine bang-up job of demoralizing and driving off its C++
customers. It needs to step up to the plate and show that it really wants our business.
Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:

{smallsort}

Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:
service pack was over a year ago. You get to the stage where you think
"Whats the point"
Along with the fact that all info so far points that BCB is dead, and
BCBX is the future of Borland's C++ offerings (if they ever update that,
again, many bugs filed, but no hint of a patch for some serious bugs) so
now which product do we put our effort in to trying to get updated and
patched?
 

On Fri, 07 May 2004 08:38:41 +0100, Russell Hind wrote:
--
Andrue Cope
[Bicester UK]
 

"Randall Parker" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:409adf82$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
going to change anything here. I mean if Borland says that they
will eventually patch BCB to perfection and release a stellar
version of CBX at some point, who is going to wait and see?
As far as posting any more QC reports for BCB, why would anyone
bother with a product that Borland has stated that it will no longer
develop?
I was pretty much done with QC reports when NONE of them were
fixed in BCB. I gave in with CBX and decided to evaluate it and
post QC since Borland assured us that they would improve their
quality control. Well I, and many others, have done so and the
most they've done is mark some of the reports open. No patches
have been issued for CBX1.
We're all software people here and I'm sure we understand the
problems with first release versions but after 6-8 months with
no updates? Even after 4 updates, BCB6 is still full of unaddressed
bugs. Some of which seem trivial to repair.What about the people that
purchased that one? How can Borland just decide to blow it off
with no fixes? We would be out of business if we did this.
How can we keep giving our business to this company?
 

It seems that BCBX is not doing very well. People are complaining about a
lack of service packs for that product as well. From what I have read in the
news groups, C++ development is dead on the windows platform. What I mean
by dead is that companies can no longer support a development effort from
revenues.
Open Watom www.openwatcom.com and the Microsoft free compiler are
alteratives. I currently use Watcom and CPP Builder V5.0.
I stopped waiting for Borland products. They are dropping too many products
to purchase anything.
Kylix - dead.
CPP Builder - dead
Codewright - dead
Interbase Open Source - Dead
C#Builder - dead.
BCBX - almost dead.
Neidermeyer - dead
"Russell Hind" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

Maybe Borland have had a change of heart?
Maybe their roadmap is a lot longer than they originally planned and they
can see that the RAD, etc. for CBX is not going to happen in the near
future, the profits from CBX has fallen short of projections and now their
userbase is starting to migrate elsewhere. What can they do? Show they
still care by fixing several (all would be too much to ask for) in BCB6, a
couple of fixes in the C/C++ runtime and hopefully that will quieten down
the ravenous horde (us:-) so they can get back to making CBX better.
G.
 

It also smacks of bad internal software design, when building on the foundation product (BCB1) causes so many
bugs to appear (BCB6) that they can't keep up, or they realise that the foundations of the software are at
fault, so it's not worth continuing to support it. The same has happened to IE6 - there will not be an IE7
because the basic framework for IE is already over-laboured.
However, some of us programmers are better than the average Joe found at Microshaft. Whenever I design a
project, I leave it for a couple weeks so that my unconscious brain can get a handle on where it may lead, and
end up designing something with more futureproofness in it than I could have imagined consciously.
It is software houses like ours which should get the big national interest contracts (for example in the UK,
the NHS remit), because we can demonstrably prove our ability to scale our software up to beyond the current
world population, and show successful client businesses still using well thought out DOS 16-bit applications
as the backbone of their money-making IT investment! Don't worry - we have now brought them into Windows
world, with backward-compatible Win32-bit versions of what they were using.
Personally, I feel "too many cooks spoil the broth" and "big and complex is worse than small and simple". If I
see an algorithm implementation that is generating too many lines of code, I'll re-implement it until it is
transparently obvious what it is doing, and the design can be improved.
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

Soon it will be
Salaried Programmers - dead.
Management with no idea what "the big glowing thing" is on their desk (it's a monitor, ass-wipe) - very much
alive and shafting up the rigors of programming irrevocably.
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
"Bob" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

On Fri, 7 May 2004 13:33:01 +0100, Mark Jacobs wrote:
trade-off against getting to market in time to be relevant and/or reducing
development costs by sharing the IDE code base with Delphi.
BCB6 has some issues, certainly. Some of those issues are trivial and
should have been addressed earlier, certainly. OTOH I use BCB6 every
working day and put it through hell and back. It rarely hinders me and
about the only complaint I could genuinely, hand on my heart, level at it
is that it sometimes makes me say rude words.
hell of a lot of CVs through their doors every day. Given that much choice
I would expect they employ some of the best developers on the planet. It's
possible that some of us here are better than some of them but I wouldn't
take it as a given. I would certainly dispute any implied suggestion that
MS developers are not very good.
(Police departments don't have much money either). OTOH we did it several
years ago. The result was a much more powerful suite and within a year or
so pretty much all our clients had suddenly found more room in their
budgets and bought new kit. Now they tend to clammer at us for more and
more features safe in the knowledge that we will always say "yes".
Just because your clients can't see the advantage of upgrading hardware
regularly doesn't mean there aren't any. /Show/ them something useful that
only an Athlon-64 can do and they will upgrade.
--
Andrue Cope
[Bicester UK]
 

"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
fix. I mean the actual code for the fix (it's in a header). Reported
5/23/03. It just sat there without garnering the slightest response from
Borland. The same with report 1199 (Casting to a protected base). I got the
impression QC wasn't connected to anything like one of those crosswalk
buttons that works on the placebo effect. Or maybe like a suggestion box
with no bottom and a garbage can underneath.
Patrick
 

At 14:22:21, 07.05.2004, Graham Reeds wrote:
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another
must wait till that other is ready."
-- Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
 

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
<nothing>
Speechless? :)
--
Ken
planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/
* this is not a sig *
 

At 00:57:32, 08.05.2004, Kenneth de Camargo wrote:
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Minksy's Second Law: Don't just do something. Stand there."
-- Marvin Minsky