Board index » cppbuilder » Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Re: cpp_open_letter email address


2004-01-16 02:59:21 PM
cppbuilder25
"Simon Hooper" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
I monitor the cbuilderx.non-technical group daily for news on VCL.

The reason for my original post stemmed from frustration at not having a
reply from the email address that we were invited to use in the first open
letter. A standard 'we will let you know' reply would have been better PR
than no reply at all. I was trying to find out if anyone else got a reply.
They don't care. They don't have to. They're self-destructing.
 
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Andrue Cope < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Ah yes. So many sarcastic comments to choose from. So hard to choose. I
didn't bother, so kudos to you :)
You're a better man that I am, Gunga Din.
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

"Duane Hebert" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Actually, the CBX groups are pretty much the only ones where I've seen
Borland participate (I don't mean TeamB).
There's a good chance that you'll get a response.
Or not.
Quote
conclusion that I can't presently use this product.
That would be true for many of us.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Leroy Casterline wrote:
Quote

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>The have not released the VCL open letter, nor are they ready to give an
>estimated date for that letter.

Thank God they care so greatly for their customers.
They do care. They want to make certain that they will deliver what they are
going to tell you they will. Until all the pieces are lined up and they are
certain they are not going to talk about it.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
(Please do not email me directly unless asked. Thank You)
If there is somebody up there could they throw me down a line. Just a
little helping hand just a little understanding. Just some answers to the
questions that surround me now. If there's somebody up there could
they throw me down a line. (Fish)
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 09:45:07 -0500, Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
>Thank God they care so greatly for their customers.

They do care. They want to make certain that they will deliver what they are
going to tell you they will. Until all the pieces are lined up and they are
certain they are not going to talk about it.
That's all well and good but by the the time their plan is published will
it matter? Not to us I don't think.
Borland have behaved shamelessly toward existing BCB6/VCL developers. They
have deprecated BCB6 and not provided anything in its place nor even
confirmed if/when anything ever will appear. Instead we seem to be just
being told to switch to the new product and forget about the framework that
we've come to rely on over the past several years.
--
Andrue Cope
[Bicester UK]
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:49:07 +0000, Andrue Cope < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Borland have behaved shamelessly toward existing BCB6/VCL developers. They
have deprecated BCB6 and not provided anything in its place nor even
confirmed if/when anything ever will appear. Instead we seem to be just
being told to switch to the new product and forget about the framework that
we've come to rely on over the past several years.
That's exactly what MS did to VB users. Borland's attitude isn't the
exception.
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Quote
Borland have behaved shamelessly toward existing BCB6/VCL developers. They
have deprecated BCB6 and not provided anything in its place nor even
confirmed if/when anything ever will appear. Instead we seem to be just
being told to switch to the new product and forget about the framework that
we've come to rely on over the past several years.
Except that the new product is not a replacement for BCB. They even now say that
it was never intended to be (at least this release which means that it may at some
point possibly offer some method of potentially achieving a result that is not totally
dissimilar to what may have been currently feasible )
Sorry for the rant but I'm spending WAY too much time dealing with BCB6 bugs that have
been documented for years and never fixed. We're getting very close to choosing an
alternative. The people on these groups have been great in assisting me with these
problems. I will miss the Borland community but this is starting to affect our p/l. We're
not going to have a choice.
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Fernando wrote:
Quote

That's exactly what MS did to VB users. Borland's attitude isn't the
exception.
The only difference being MSFT giving people months, if not years, of
advance notice.
.a
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:49:07 +0000, Andrue Cope wrote:
Quote
That's all well and good but by the the time their plan is published will
it matter? Not to us I don't think.
Nor us.
--
liz
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
They do care. They want to make certain that they will deliver what they are
going to tell you they will. Until all the pieces are lined up and they are
certain they are not going to talk about it.
Jeff,
If they are uncertain then why? Possibilities:
1) They are uncertain that higher level managers will continue to fund Win32 VCL
support in BCBX until the point where it is ready to release.
2) They don't know whether their generic forms designer can be made to work with
Win32 VCL well enough.
Borland provides Delphi people a lot more specific promises about the future further
in advance. Why? I think probably because Delphi has more internal resources to make
those promises possible.
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Randall Parker wrote:
Quote

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:

>They do care. They want to make certain that they will deliver what they are
>going to tell you they will. Until all the pieces are lined up and they are
>certain they are not going to talk about it.

Jeff,

If they are uncertain then why? Possibilities:

1) They are uncertain that higher level managers will continue to fund Win32 VCL
support in BCBX until the point where it is ready to release.

2) They don't know whether their generic forms designer can be made to work with
Win32 VCL well enough.

There are other possibilities. I'd be violating my NDA if I went into them.
Quote
Borland provides Delphi people a lot more specific promises about the future further
in advance.
No they don't. The DElphi people complain just as loudly as the BCB people do
about Borland being closed mouth about the future. All you have to do is look
at the complaints about nothing being definitely said about Win32's future to
see that.
Quote
Why? I think probably because Delphi has more internal resources to make
those promises possible.
Delphi generates a lot more revenue so yes I would expect it to get more
resources. That only make good business sense. That is not the only reason
though or even a high reason.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
(Please do not email me directly unless asked. Thank You)
If there is somebody up there could they throw me down a line. Just a
little helping hand just a little understanding. Just some answers to the
questions that surround me now. If there's somebody up there could
they throw me down a line. (Fish)
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
There are other possibilities. I'd be violating my NDA if I went into them.
Jeff, this is a bunch of {*word*99}. It's Borland's responsibility to keep us
informed, not yours. They need to lay their cards on the table even if
they haven't made a final decision. They OWE us a lot more than that.
Quote
Delphi generates a lot more revenue so yes I would expect it to get more
resources. That only make good business sense. That is not the only reason
though or even a high reason.
I have no argument with that. But I expect Borland to give us some
warning before they stab us in the back. When they knew that the BCB
line was being replaced with the new CBX line, they had a DUTY to tell
their BCB programmers what was going on.
The absolute least they should have done was to bring BCB up to Delphi 7
compatibility, fix all the really {*word*193} bugs, and then tell us that this
would be the last BCB release, and that nothing other than bug fixes
would be released for BCB in the future. They have a M{*word*203}OBLIGATION to
do at least this much for their BCB programmers. If they had any HONOR,
they would have done this months ago.
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Exactly. I've already written off Borland for future development work.
Any future Windows GUI development will most likely be in C# (and no,
not with C# Builder). I've used every Borland C/C++ compilers since
Turbo C 1.0 and they've finally lost my business.
I guess I remain somewhat hopeful, but every time I've been encouraged
by something Borland does, they find a new way to make it even worse.
Liz Albin wrote:
Quote
On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:49:07 +0000, Andrue Cope wrote:


>That's all well and good but by the the time their plan is published will
>it matter? Not to us I don't think.


Nor us.
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Quote
Sorry for the rant but I'm spending WAY too much time dealing with BCB6
bugs that have
been documented for years and never fixed. We're getting very close to
choosing an
alternative. The people on these groups have been great in assisting me
with these
problems. I will miss the Borland community but this is starting to
affect our p/l. We're
not going to have a choice.
Welcome to the club.
Regards,
Frank.
 

Re:Re: cpp_open_letter email address

Quote
The C++BuilderX groups are relatively new. So far, most customers have
chosen to discuss C++BuilderX in the C++Builder groups (such as this one)
rather than the dedicated C++BuilderX groups.
This is definitively not true.
There were many posts and a lot of discussion esp. about the BCX/VCL issue
some weeks ago. But the whole community there seems to have dissapeard.
Lets have a look at Microsoft's .NET groups if we'll find them there. :-(
Frank.