Board index » cppbuilder » CBX...not a good thing, IMO...

CBX...not a good thing, IMO...


2003-09-18 05:24:45 AM
cppbuilder31
Let's see what we get with C++BuilderX:
1. A bloated pig of a Java-based IDE with no GUI-builder.
2. No VCL integration (or support, again AFAICT).
3. No native CORBA support (which is to say C++ CORBA, not the
Java-ized "CORBA" that runs like molasses in January).
4. No more MIDAS/DataSnap/whatever-the-hell they're calling it now.
5. Multiple-backed support (I read this as: "we don't have our own C++
compiler up to{*word*47}yet, so you can use someone else's")
6. Database integration seems to be DBExpress-based (shudder). No
word on BDE/ADO support.
7. Change-control support in the IDE (CVS, Visual SourceSafe, etc.)
seems to be missing.
In essence, Borland is saying that it took them *two years* to give us
a Java tool with poor C++ support. Big schmeal. So what the %#$#!
would I *pay* for? What exactly does this product bring to the table
that I can't get with Eclipse or (God strike me dead for saying such a
thing) Emacs and GCC? The whole *point* of CPPBuilder was the RAD
environment; without that, I might as well be using Visual C++.
I really wish Borland would pick a technology and stick with it.
First it was OWL; then it was VCL; then CLX; now wxWindows (or
whatever they'll end of calling it). And that leaves open the whole
question of database integration: BDE, ADO, DBExpress (in all its
horribly bug-ridden glory), or something else?
Again, can someone tell my how Borland has the gall to *charge* for
this thing?
 
 

Re:CBX...not a good thing, IMO...

I agree whole heartedly.
Have a look at Borlands lost the plot with CBX!
Monty Manley wrote:
Quote
Let's see what we get with C++BuilderX:

1. A bloated pig of a Java-based IDE with no GUI-builder.
2. No VCL integration (or support, again AFAICT).
3. No native CORBA support (which is to say C++ CORBA, not the
Java-ized "CORBA" that runs like molasses in January).
4. No more MIDAS/DataSnap/whatever-the-hell they're calling it now.
5. Multiple-backed support (I read this as: "we don't have our own C++
compiler up to{*word*47}yet, so you can use someone else's")
6. Database integration seems to be DBExpress-based (shudder). No
word on BDE/ADO support.
7. Change-control support in the IDE (CVS, Visual SourceSafe, etc.)
seems to be missing.

In essence, Borland is saying that it took them *two years* to give us
a Java tool with poor C++ support. Big schmeal. So what the %#$#!
would I *pay* for? What exactly does this product bring to the table
that I can't get with Eclipse or (God strike me dead for saying such a
thing) Emacs and GCC? The whole *point* of CPPBuilder was the RAD
environment; without that, I might as well be using Visual C++.

I really wish Borland would pick a technology and stick with it.
First it was OWL; then it was VCL; then CLX; now wxWindows (or
whatever they'll end of calling it). And that leaves open the whole
question of database integration: BDE, ADO, DBExpress (in all its
horribly bug-ridden glory), or something else?

Again, can someone tell my how Borland has the gall to *charge* for
this thing?