Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Hold onto your hats!!

Re: Hold onto your hats!!


2003-09-16 09:55:17 AM
cppbuilder15
Quote
>Link to store, but no product available in store.

Yes, it is listed in the store. Look under the C++Builder section. CBX is
listed on top of BCB6.

Thx Remy
 
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

Shane Stump wrote:
Quote
I would be curious to know how many programmers are using CBuilder to
develop non-visual apps. All the programmers I know who are doing black box
programming are either using Microsoft Visual C++ or gnu (not Borland).

I was tempted a this point as well while Remy was insisting
(correctly) that Borland had made no commitment to support the VCL
in the Open Letter. AFAIK, Delphi can be used to create console
based apps as well but come on...
I find it hard to believe that when the BCB user base was surveyed
that there was overwhelming support to abandon the VCL heritage of
the product.
regards,
jeff
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"M" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
So, this "product" is really just a waste of time then, isn't it?
Hardly. There are a lot of people who will benefit from the current version
as it already stands, and others will benefit later is it continues to
mature over the next several months and beyond.
Quote
It gives me a toolset I don't need and in addition doesn't
extend the toolset I'm invested in.
Then don't use it yet. Nobody said you had to upgrade this very second.
Just like every other version that ever came out for any other product
before it. Give it time to make sure the kinks are worked out.
Quote
All you have to do is hold the BCB6 product discription to
the one for CBX and you should notice they have next to
nothing in common.
I doubt that they are supposed to just yet. They are different products for
different generations with different goals.
Quote
One is a Windows based RAD tool for writing windows
programs FAST and EASY, supporting tons of platform
features, with reasonable cross-platform portability (via CLX).
That is not a fair comparion. CLX was a failed attempt at cross-platform.
It didn't work correctly a lot of times, it did not live up to expectations,
and it was not extendable enough to support more than Windows and Linux.
Why do you think Borland wants a new cross-platform framework to begin with?
CLX can't take Borland where they want to go - to additional markets,
addtional platforms (Solaris, Unix, Mac, etc), extendability, flexibility,
tight integration with more tools, etc etc etc.
Quote
The other is a fancy wrapper for a bunch of compilers doing
nothing important in the area of rapid application development
or offering improved compatibility.
... only at this moment. Give it time. Sheesh, why can't people understand
that this is only a "PREVIEW" version, still only stage 1 of a whole future
of new tools and possibilities. The next stages of development will
continue to mature the product into one that provides fast and easy RAD for
writing software for multiple platforms, not just Windows, and to allow the
user to use any proprietary and non-proprietary tools they want, not just
what Borland tells them to use.
Quote
This is not an upgrade for BCB6..
Nobody ever said it was a simple upgrade. This is a new product.
Quote
"Pure C++"???? Sure.. with VC++ and g++ compiler
drop-in.. since they support ISO C++ better.
Only because Borland is still working on its own new compiler that will be
100% ANSI/ISO compliant. Not even Microsoft and other vendors have that
yet. That compiler will come shortly.
Quote
On the personal level this just means Borland was/is a
poor investment for me. Don't send me an "upgrade" notice;
unless it says BCB7 on it.
This is not an upgrade.
Gambit
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

David Erbas-White wrote:
Quote

If you add into the equation that 'BCB7' must be solely C++ based, then
you are correct. But to this point, Borland has argued vehemently
against this, and taken their customers down a path that has
(ultimately) led to a dead end.

Ultimately, .NET will kill pure Win32 programming and the VCL will
die with it. I hope Borland has the decency to release version 7 (or
6.1) and put it into maintenance mode after that.
regards,
jeff
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
[snip]
Quote
>Remy, I'm one of those programmers for which GUI is a
>small part of the project and do it without aid of visual designers.
>I use Emacs, GNU Make, several compilers (~6 if you count
>different versions of gcc) and release for Windows, Linux, BSD
>and EpocR5 (the father of Symbiam OS). I'm more *productive*
>with those tools that with any IDE. That's the way most *nix
>developers works and keeps working that way even when some
>nice, opne, non-propietary IDEs are available. So I ask to
>Borland: have I missed something?

Yes. The ability to use all of those tools under a single IDE, fully
integrated with each other, presented to the user under a single look&feel
interface.
My editor is my IDE. For building a project with Intel, I do Alt-x
make INTEL=1. If I want a release version instead of the debugging
one, I do Alt-x make INTEL=1 release=1. Likewise for profile. Faster
and simpler than clicking things around. (Of course, the editor
remembers the parameters used on last build, so rebuilding is just two
keypresses).
OTOH, makefiles provides a flexibility that GUI-oriented IDE project
managers can just dream with.
Quote
Look, I understand what you are saying. But I am not the right
person to be advocating this stuff, but I'm doing it anyway because
I know what Borland is trying to accomplish, and I don't see too
many people in here rising to Borland's defense so someone has to.
Borland is the one who must defend itself. Just publish a clear,
unambiguous roadmap and follow that with concrete actions. Explain why
some decisions were made. If customers are not happy, bit the bullet
and talk to them. Convince them that Borland plans are the correct
ones.
Quote
I'm not a {*word*155} language person, nor a cross-platform person. I
represent the VCL side of the userbase. Chris U and Ed M are the
{*word*155} people such as yourself, they're the one's who should be,
and are trying to, push the benefits of this new system.
Personally, I am waiting for the RAD features. But that doesn't
mean I think CBX is useless in its current form, either. Where all
of you guys are seeing doubt and worthlessness, I'm seeing potential
for a great product in the long run, and will keep pushing for that
end. But that's just me.
I agree with you: CBX has potential. What worries me is that, IMO,
Borland is releasing a product that is more remarkable by its
potential and promises than for the usability it provides now, just
because they don't want to wait a bit more and provide something that
could paliate current user's disgust when they discover than BCB/VCL
is dead. That will erode customer's confidence on Borland further,
which is the main problem I addressed on the first part of my previous
message.
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"Oscar Fuentes" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
My editor is my IDE. For building a project with Intel, I do Alt-x
make INTEL=1. If I want a release version instead of the debugging
one, I do Alt-x make INTEL=1 release=1. Likewise for profile. Faster
and simpler than clicking things around.
How about the ability to set up profiles for all of the different build
types you want, and then to have all of them listed in the IDE itself as a
simple combobox and/or button to automatically switch the environment to
that specific build type prior to compiling? CBX offers that.
Quote
OTOH, makefiles provides a flexibility that GUI-oriented IDE project
managers can just dream with.
CBX has a revamped Project Mananger over BCB, much more versitile and
flexible.
Quote
Borland is the one who must defend itself. Just publish a clear,
unambiguous roadmap and follow that with concrete actions.
Explain why some decisions were made. If customers are not
happy, bit the bullet and talk to them. Convince them that
Borland plans are the correct ones.
They have been doing exactly that. They've done market research. They have
contacted existing customers, vendors, etc. They have done surveys. All
indications they are reaching from the industry point to them doing the
right thing. The only ones who seem to be complaining are some of the
individual joe smoe end users.
Quote
I agree with you: CBX has potential. What worries me is that,
IMO, Borland is releasing a product that is more remarkable by
its potential and promises than for the usability it provides now
Why, just because you are not the type of user that Borland is specifically
targetting just yet? Sheesh, they can't please the entire C++ market
overnight. They'll focus on this group this time, on that group next time,
on another group after that, and so on, as they introduce CBX into the world
at large. They decided to go for the die hard coders first, try to win some
of them back from the BC++ days. Then the GUI people will be next with the
new RAD features and C++ framework w/ UI support, then on and on. This is
just the beginning...
Quote
just because they don't want to wait a bit more
Users didn't give them a chance to wait any longer. CBX has been in
development fopr awhile. People were complaining that Borland seemingly
wasn't doing ANYTHING at all for C++. What would you have them do? Sit on
it for another 6-12 months, letting everything comtinue thinking they
weren't doing anything? Of course not. Borland answered the cry for
information. That is where the Open Letter about C++'s future comes in.
That is where CBX's public release come in. This is a PREVIEW, PREVIEW,
PREVIEW, PREVIEW, PREVIEW of many more things yet to come. Have some
patience. BCB is not dead yet, you can still use it for maintaining current
projects, keep things rolling until you decide later on to give CBX another
try when it is more mature. Some people are even finding ways to work with
BCB and CBX together under CBX is ready to stand on its own for everything.
In the meantime, there are those users who will like to use CBX now as-is,
and they will do so.
Gambit
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
>It gives me a toolset I don't need and in addition doesn't
>extend the toolset I'm invested in.


Then don't use it yet. Nobody said you had to upgrade this very second.
Just like every other version that ever came out for any other product
before it. Give it time to make sure the kinks are worked out.
I quote: "It is not a bug. BCB6's version of the VCL simply has no
official support for XP yet." I'm waiting, I bet so are a bunch of
others. Also need a compiler that digests the boost library better.
Speed improvement in the IDE would be nice.
Quote
I doubt that they are supposed to just yet. They are different
products for
different generations with different goals.
If the goal is to replace BCB then it's not happening. If you're using
BCB6 now, XP won't happen for you. You can either swallow hard and try
again or... {*word*81} off? That's what "Open Letters to our customers"
really forebode, right?
Quote
>One is a Windows based RAD tool for writing windows
>programs FAST and EASY, supporting tons of platform
>features, with reasonable cross-platform portability (via CLX).


That is not a fair comparion. CLX was a failed attempt at cross-platform.
It didn't work correctly a lot of times, it did not live up to expectations,
and it was not extendable enough to support more than Windows and Linux.
That was enough tho.
Quote
Why do you think Borland wants a new cross-platform framework to begin with?
Ah.. cat, bag, out. Nothing against wxWindows, nothing against
x-platform. Nice for the future... IFF I have a nice and/or slow
upgrade/conversion path w/o significant lack of functionality. (All "no"
at the moment.)
Quote
CLX can't take Borland where they want to go - to additional markets,
addtional platforms (Solaris, Unix, Mac, etc), extendability, flexibility,
tight integration with more tools, etc etc etc.
You're trying to reinvent the wheel on one hand and take on
well-entrenched Unix vendors on on the other. The cost is put on the
Windows developer because he/she is supposed to sell an app that looks
worse than an AWT app. If I didn't need a UI I'd just use gcc. The word
"additional" comes from ADD. A reasonable person would assume that one
KEEPS what one has and gains something more. CBX throws everything that
was in BCB OUT and ADDS nothing. Perhaps the online shop ad should say
"downgrade to CBX, receive $2500 from us for changing everything to
wxWindows"? ;)
Quote
>The other is a fancy wrapper for a bunch of compilers doing
>nothing important in the area of rapid application development
>or offering improved compatibility.


.... only at this moment. Give it time. Sheesh, why can't people understand
that this is only a "PREVIEW" version, still only stage 1 of a whole future
Quit saying that.. a "PREVIEW" comes in a sleeve glued into the next
issue of Dr. Dobbs... not stuck to a $2500 price sticker.
Quote
of new tools and possibilities. The next stages of development will
continue to mature the product into one that provides fast and easy RAD for
writing software for multiple platforms, not just Windows, and to allow the
user to use any proprietary and non-proprietary tools they want, not just
what Borland tells them to use.
It's cross-platformism gone wrong. I'm no big fan of MS, but I'm a big
fan of making my life easier. And that's exactly where CBX falls short
for anyone who wants to write an apps w/ a UI other than curses.
The other thing it falls short on is to provide me with a PLAN for the
future that shows me how my INVESTMENT in tools and time is going to be
VALID for years to come. What THIS tool shows me is that I shouldn't
bother.. sit back and relax and see where things are going. Oh, and in 5
years we'll have a completely platform independent, language-neutral
tool; problem is: your existing code no worky and the controls you
bought, well.. it's just money after all.
Quote
>This is not an upgrade for BCB6..


Nobody ever said it was a simple upgrade. This is a new product.
The where is MY upgrade? In 6 months Borland will tell me to get CBX 2.0
and use wxWindows or get stuffed. Rumour was that BCB7 is coming out
around these days... instead I get 'a new product' which I can upgrade
to for mondo $$$ and makes me start over fresh (it's spring already? Oh,
wait, 6 months from now.)
Quote
Only because Borland is still working on its own new compiler that will be
100% ANSI/ISO compliant. Not even Microsoft and other vendors have that
yet. That compiler will come shortly.
It better be in BCB7 ;)
Quote
>On the personal level this just means Borland was/is a
>poor investment for me. Don't send me an "upgrade" notice;
>unless it says BCB7 on it.


This is not an upgrade.
Then there should be a CLEAR statement either way:
1. there won't be an upgrade to BCB, or
2. BCB7 will come shortly (updated piler, vcl, .NET, facy pantsy, knock
ya off yer rocker, the thing EVERY BCB guy was looking forward to for a
year).
Either way, just say so (no, not you Remy, you're way too valuable to
the community :) ). A company with a marketing department that keeps me
in the dark is fine and dandy if we're talking recreational vehicles.
Would you build a house with a contractor who won't tell you when your
roof will be done? And then some day the roof is up there and not what
you need/want, but tells you "it's a preview roof.. wait and check out
how cool it'll be in a year"? See?!?! Looking at the posts, CBX has put
a lot of uncertainty into people... myself included.
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
"Oscar Fuentes" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>My editor is my IDE. For building a project with Intel, I do Alt-x
>make INTEL=1. If I want a release version instead of the debugging
>one, I do Alt-x make INTEL=1 release=1. Likewise for profile. Faster
>and simpler than clicking things around.

How about the ability to set up profiles for all of the different build
types you want,
That was implicit on the description I gave above. Actually, I have a
piece of makefile shared among all projects that describes
functionality for every platform and compiler. The build command is
basically saying "build for that OS using that compiler with those
options" where the options are specified on a platform/compiler
independent way, if applicable.
Quote
and then to have all of them listed in the IDE itself as a
simple combobox and/or button to automatically switch the environment to
that specific build type prior to compiling? CBX offers that.
The combobox stuff is irrelevant. Personally, I don't feel the need
for "seeing" everything I can do, much less when I know perfectly well
what I can do and how to do it. OTOH, using the mouse is a waste of
time when you have a properly configured editor.
Quote
>OTOH, makefiles provides a flexibility that GUI-oriented IDE project
>managers can just dream with.

CBX has a revamped Project Mananger over BCB, much more versitile and
flexible.
Remy, my crystal ball says that CBX's project manager can't compete
with 'make' yet <g>.
Quote
>Borland is the one who must defend itself. Just publish a clear,
>unambiguous roadmap and follow that with concrete actions.
>Explain why some decisions were made. If customers are not
>happy, bit the bullet and talk to them. Convince them that
>Borland plans are the correct ones.

They have been doing exactly that.
At what point they *clearly* said that the VCL is dead? Or that they
will support it for X more years? How much time on advance of CBX
release they published the Open Letter?
Quote
They've done market research. They have contacted existing
customers, vendors, etc. They have done surveys. All indications
they are reaching from the industry point to them doing the right
thing.
This is not what I'm talking about. The key is working with your
customers, not ignoring them until the day you have something to sell.
Quote
The only ones who seem to be complaining are some of the individual
joe smoe end users.
I think that each and every user that has some live project using the
VCL has legitimate reasons to be concerned. This embraces the immense
majority of BCB users, I guess.
Quote
>I agree with you: CBX has potential. What worries me is that,
>IMO, Borland is releasing a product that is more remarkable by
>its potential and promises than for the usability it provides now

Why, just because you are not the type of user that Borland is specifically
targetting just yet?
[snip]
They decided to go for the die hard coders first, try to win some
of them back from the BC++ days.
I've said that I'm a die hard C++ coder. Supposedly, CBX is targeting
me right now. The only interesting things CBX contains for me are
those pieces that are on preview stage: the new compiler and the new
framework. Sadly, those things are not ready for serious work so any
investement I'll do on them would be just for satiating my
curiosity. For the IDE, I already have better tools, thank you.
[snip]
Quote
>just because they don't want to wait a bit more

Users didn't give them a chance to wait any longer. CBX has been in
development fopr awhile. People were complaining that Borland seemingly
wasn't doing ANYTHING at all for C++. What would you have them do?
Launching a public beta for the new compiler, perhaps? Or for the
whole CBX package?
Quote
Sit on it for another 6-12 months, letting everything comtinue
thinking they weren't doing anything?
Some TeamB members here [sic] are saying that the compiler and the
framework will be released "after a short period". Well, if they need
a short period, just a few months wouldn't hurt, much less when
everybody knows that a private beta is going on. OTOH, if they will
need up to 12 months...
Quote
Of course not. Borland answered the cry for information. That is
where the Open Letter about C++'s future comes in.
Under the light of the CBX release, the Open Letter seems very little
informative. Heck, after the CBX release, some fundamental questions
are still unanswered: will CBX support migration from VCL? Will be
another significant BCB patch? Any schedule for the new framework
release?
Quote
That is where CBX's public release
come in. This is a PREVIEW, PREVIEW, PREVIEW, PREVIEW, PREVIEW of
many more things yet to come. Have some patience. BCB is not dead
yet, you can still use it for maintaining current projects, keep
things rolling until you decide later on to give CBX another try
when it is more mature.
Remy, my copy of Turbo C is not dead yet <g>. However, since Turbo C
was launched, I took several decisions wrt which tool to
use. Unsurprisingly, I don't use Turbo C anymore. My point is that
people are making decisions and they need some base. If there is no
more than speculation from Borland, maybe they'll pick other vendor.
Actually, it seems that Borland prefers keeping their users on the
ignorance. Maybe this is so because they think that the truth will
damage the company, or just because they have no real roadmap.
Quote
Some people are even finding ways to work with BCB and CBX together
under CBX is ready to stand on its own for everything.
And I maintain VCL code using Emacs. You just need the editor and
MAKE. As far as you don't need to modify a complex form, it works.
Quote
In the meantime, there are those users who will like to use CBX now
as-is, and they will do so.
Of course.
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
"M" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:3f6668cf$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>The other is a fancy wrapper for a bunch of compilers doing
>nothing important in the area of rapid application development
>or offering improved compatibility.

... only at this moment. Give it time. Sheesh, why can't people
understand that this is only a "PREVIEW" version, still only stage 1
of a whole future of new tools and possibilities. The next stages of
development will continue to mature the product into one that
provides fast and easy RAD for writing software for multiple
platforms, not just Windows, and to allow the user to use any
proprietary and non-proprietary tools they want, not just what
Borland tells them to use.
Then why price this "preview" version so outlandishly. What possible reason
could Borland have to set such ridiculous prices ? Is it to tell us how
little they think of us as their customers ? Is it to express the belief
that developers must "seed" Borland's efforts in this area by paying through
the nose ? Borland did the same thing with Kylix, and eventually realized
that people were just not going to pay such nonsensical amounts for so
relatively little. Now we have the exact same idiocy with CBX. Oh yes,
companies can set whatever price they like, we live in a free society, and
caveat emptor, let the buyer beware. But why insult the customers Borland
already has with such nonsense.
Even if this were a non-"preview" version, and there was already full RAD
and GUI capability on a number of platforms, the pricing is outlandish. Who
will pay this and why ? I upgraded from VC6 to VS Studio .NET 2002 for about
$250 and from VS Studio .NET 2002 to VS Studio .NET 2002 for $30. OK,
Borland is not the multi-mega-company which Microsoft is, but really there
is no need to gouge customers.
I laud the move to support a full C++ RAD/GUI environment for programming by
Borland, especially as they have supported C++ Builder as a poor relative of
Delphi for years. I don't think that wxWindows is the solution since many of
its idioms are actually a step backward from to what C++ Builder programmers
have become used with __closures and __properties, and other wxWindows
idioms make no attempt to follow the latest good C++ design standards as
popularized by Boost, Loki, and other advanced C++ libraries which insist on
C++ standard conforming compilers. But gouging customers because they will
now support C++, not as an adjunct of Delphi and OP but as a language in its
own right, is not the way to treat your customers and potential future
users.
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"Oscar Fuentes" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Launching a public beta for the new compiler, perhaps?
Or for the whole CBX package?
They did have a beta test period for CBX as a whole, both private and
public. As for the compiler, nobody has beta tested that yet, it is still
in development.
Quote
Some TeamB members here [sic] are saying that the compiler
and the framework will be released "after a short period".
Yes.
Gambit
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"M" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I quote: "It is not a bug. BCB6's version of the VCL simply
has no official support for XP yet." I'm waiting, I bet so are
a bunch of others.
I said that long before I even knew CBX existed, back at a time that Borland
still said that there would be a normal BCB7 as expected (albeit when ,
noone knew at the time).
Quote
Also need a compiler that digests the boost library better.
They are already working on that. The new compiler will be able to work
with all of the major frameworks (boost, loki, etc.) better than the current
one does.
Quote
If you're using BCB6 now, XP won't happen for you.
Why not? Just because themes aren't officially supported? I know for a
fact that BCB6 works just fine for making projects for XP in general, my own
company is doing exactly that our own products. As for the themes support,
as long as you use components that deal with the native Win32 controls
without any extra handling, themes work just fine. It is only the
custom-drawn components that have issues, and those can be worked around.
And any new API functions can be used in BCB6 as well via dynamic linking,
which you should be using anyway if you want your software to support other
versions of Windows as well. And if you want to do static linking to them
instead, there's nothing stopping you from making your own import .lib file
for them, that is why Builder ships with the IMPLIB tool.
Quote
It's cross-platformism gone wrong. I'm no big fan of MS, but
I'm a big fan of making my life easier. And that's exactly where
CBX falls short for anyone who wants to write an apps w/ a
UI other than curses.
Rather than just saying that everything is done wrong, why don't you state
some SPECIFICS that you don't like about how it is set up, and how you would
propose they be improved. That would be much more valuable than all this
bickering back and forth.
Quote
Rumour was that BCB7 is coming out around these days...
The "rumor" existed a long time ago before CBX was started. Nobody said
anything about a new path of development back then. However, that doesn't
negate that BCB7 was still just a rumor, not anything official, not even to
TeamB. So really, Borland was not locked into making BCB7 even back then.
Quote
>Only because Borland is still working on its own new compiler
>that will be 100% ANSI/ISO compliant. Not even Microsoft
>and other vendors have that yet. That compiler will come shortly.

It better be in BCB7 ;)
It will be in CBX shortly enough, have some patience.
Quote
Then there should be a CLEAR statement either way:
1. there won't be an upgrade to BCB, or
2. BCB7 will come shortly (updated piler, vcl, .NET, facy pantsy,
knock ya off yer rocker, the thing EVERY BCB guy was looking
forward to for a year).
Well, I very much doubt that the kind of BCB7 that you are suggesting will
happen. They have already publically stated that CBX is the next version of
Builder. There is no reason all of those features can not be implemented in
CBX, however... WHEN everything has finally been finished and added in to
it.
Gambit
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"Remy Lebeau \(TeamB\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
"Oscar Fuentes" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>Launching a public beta for the new compiler, perhaps?
>Or for the whole CBX package?

They did have a beta test period for CBX as a whole, both private and
public.
No, only people that was approved by Borland accessed the beta. No,
CBX as a whole was not beta tested. As you say, the compiler was not
beta tested, neither other key components of the CBX picture, I guess.
Remy, you are not the one who needs to be convinced, nor the one who
has the answers. Better I'll stop wasting the time of a helpful TeamB
member :-)
[snip]
Regards,
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"Edward Diener" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Then why price this "preview" version so outlandishly.
No clue. That was Borland's decision, not TeamB's. Several of us have
voiced our concerns over that little detail. If anything, CBX should have
been released for free, or at least at a significantly reduced price.
However, Borland says that they are charging for the features that are
already implemented and fully functional, not for the preview portion.
Gambit
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

"Oscar Fuentes" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
No, CBX as a whole was not beta tested. As you say,
the compiler was not beta tested, neither other key
components of the CBX picture, I guess.
That is because they are not available yet. They are not part of the
current version, so you can't say that they are "key" components as
obviously the product does run without them being present, although they are
important in of thmselves for the long run. That's part of the beauty of
the new IDE architecture - new functionalilty can be added to it after the
fact. Even when Borland does finish and release the new compiler, that
doesn't mean it automatically becomes the default compiler for everything.
Part of CBX's design is that any compiler can be used. The new compiler
will just be another of a series of options that Borland recommends, but
does not require. Of course, people are going to WANT to use a 100%
compliant compiler. But that will be their choice to make, not Borland's to
enforce.
Gambit
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 9/1/03
 

Re:Re: Hold onto your hats!!

Quote
But I am not the right person to be advocating this stuff, but I'm doing it
anyway because I know what Borland is trying to accomplish, and I don't see
too many people in here rising to
Borland's defense so someone has to.
I would if I could, and wish that I could. But what was presented was so much
'nothing', so much less than what I expected or was hoping for.
Quote
I'm not a {*word*155} language person, nor a cross-platform person.
I am, and I desperately need a win/*nix dev platform, NOW, not 6 months or more
from now.
Quote
I represent the VCL side of the userbase.
Chris U and Ed M are the {*word*155} people such as yourself, they're the one's
who should be, and are trying to, push the benefits of this new system.
Personally, I am waiting for the RAD features.
Ditto, RAD for cross-platform purposes. But, I needed it from BCB6, and it
wasn't there. I needed it from Kylix, and it wasn't there.
Quote
But that doesn't mean I think CBX is useless in its current form, either.
Where all of you guys areseeing doubt and worthlessness, I'm seeing potential
for a great product in the long run, and will keep pushing for that end.
Ditto on the "potential for a great product in the long run", yet, $600 to $2000
and up ?????? now, and for WHAT???
keith