Board index » cppbuilder » Re: I love BCB5

2007-03-03 05:08:29 AM
cppbuilder99
Michael Swindell (CodeGear) wrote:
Now I have hear everything.
Paranoia reigns supreme.
 

Bob < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
 

dhoke wrote:
weight a rave review from you as more likely indicative of a stable
release than I would the same information coming from some others.
Dennis Cote
 

{smallsort}

In article <45e8a141$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Dennis Cote < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
happy with BDS 2006. That would indeed be a good indication that we have
been doing well. That is the kind of response we are aiming for though.
I'm fully aware that there will be people who will never be satisfied,
but I'm confident that we can and will do better to satisfy some who we
have not satisfied in the past and present.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

"David Dean [CodeGear]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
I'm going to comment narrowly on a specific part of your statement...
While it is true that some people will never be satisfied, there may be more
than one type of person to whom that sort of statement might be applied.
For instance, there are people who:
a) will complain about anything and everything;
I suspect this is the group you were referring to.
b) will use IDE features that are infrequently (or perhaps never) used by
most users;
This group may encounter problems that nobody else does, simply by
virtue of the fact that they are accessing features that most people don't
use or don't even know exist. They tend to be (but are not limited to)
early adopters, beta testers, tinkerers, experimentalists, etc.
c) will push the envelope of language standards;
This group will identify (possibly, but not necessarily, esoteric)
language compliance issues that can potentially affect every user, whether
they realize it or not.
d) will use the product much more heavily than others;
This group relies upon the product for their daily work, so their
livelihood is closely tied to the product's dependability. They may
encounter problems that others do not, due to the sheer volume of work they
do on a daily basis with the product.
e) will use the product for "large" development projects or entire systems;
This group encounters an entirely different class of problems than those
of the hobbyist (the oft-mentioned linker bugs comes to mind).
With the exception of group (a), each of these groups will contain users who
might be thought of as "complainers" or "people who will never be
satisfied," because it seems as though they are always complaining about
problems that nobody else complains about. However, that in no way
diminishes the validity of their complaints. I often hear myself
complaining about the same problems over and over again, and sometimes it
seems like I am the only user who has ever encountered a particular problem.
And yet, I can't possibly be the only person to have ever encountered a
particular problem, but it may very well be that I encounter it much more
frequently than others just because of how, or how much, I use the product.
The point I want to make with all this is that although you cannot please
everyone all the time, you should not lower your standards or goals just
because you know you can't reach them. Please understand -- I am not
implying that is what you (David Dean) meant in your statement -- I only
wish to convey that to say, "there will be people who will never be
satisfied" should not be held as an excuse for not fixing bugs in the
product. The standards should be set high; and while you may not meet every
standard you set, striving for excellence is the only way you are going to
satisfy the majority of your users. I only ask that you (especially the
decision-makers) at CodeGear keep that in mind.
- Dennis
 

News to me. Please provide a link.
. Ed

In article <45e8bada$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Dennis Jones" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
them is there. I know that we won't meet all of them, but I will still
push for them. If not now, when? If not possible, why not? We're trying
to challenge assumptions made in the past, and make smart decisions now.
I'm very happy to say that my questions and suggestions are taken
seriously, and that I am not afraid to speak up. I look forward to
exciting our customers again. I know it can happen.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Alisdair Meredith[TeamB] wrote:
When you see major improvements in that test results column could you alert us here
to go look at it again?
get it and try to build a big project on it that my team currently develops with MS
VS and gcc. I am hopeful that BCB 2007 will provide us with a different environment
under which to test that'll turn up bugs that we aren't catching as easily with the
other environments. We have insure++ on Windows to build with MS VS. But I'd like to
try CodeGuard on it.
Also, doesn't the STL lib that now ships with BCB have some sort of more rigorous
run-time checking option that can get turned on in the build process?
 

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Randall Parker < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
not. I can't make any promises about the future.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

beta program ;)
.a
 

Alex Bakaev [TeamB] wrote:
How exactly would I do that?
 

Dennis Cote wrote:
products? Or are you just making a general assumption not based on
posts you have seen of mine?
- Leo
 

Randall Parker wrote:
XXXX@XXXXX.COM indicating your interest and telling him why
you think you would be a helpful participant.
- Leo
 

In article <45eba208$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Randall Parker < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Randall Parker wrote: