Board index » cppbuilder » VCL is dead ?!?

VCL is dead ?!?


2003-12-23 09:38:40 PM
cppbuilder3
"Russell Hind" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
We've basically decided that the VCL is no go.
Also, can we not duplicate the functionality of .NET with a new VCL
component? Completely ignore Microsofts .NET libraries, and just get it
functional. If not, a detailed explanation of why not would be most welcome.
If none of this information is forthcoming, then, I can only conclude that
alterior motives are behind Borland's abandonment of the VCL. So far, no one
has come forward with a reasonable explanation as to why I, along with many
other developers, have to drop 5 years worth of learning curve.
It seems that Microsoft are progressively shaving off access to the inner
core functions of a modern PC (possibly for security reasons), and that
programmers who use low level languages like C to access these features to
produce useful, and very fast software, are all getting the elbow from both
Microsoft and Borland (and anyone else it seems). This is the age of
disempowerment.
Here is an article I wrote for my web page at
www.jacobsm.com/techgripe.htm :-
Why does software seem to get worse as time goes on?
by Mark Jacobs - 3/2/2003 9:37:33 pm
As a computer programmer, I use a lot of different types of software, and
brand allegiance becomes second nature after a while. Nowadays, I just write
and use my own utilities for everything, except browsing newsgroups,
mirroring websites, and playing internet media streams. Under Windows, I
have written a media player, an editor and word processor, a file manager, a
database maintenance system, an e-mail client, an image viewer and
magnifier, a graph plotter, a font previewer and calculator, a simple
browser to wrap IE's built-in functionality, a PC clock synchroniser, and a
few other bits and bobs - simply because necessity is the mother of
invention. The software industry nowadays seems fat and bloated on features
I don't personally use. How many home users are heavily into XML, Java
programming, and .Net stuff? These are more for business use, not the home
user who wants as much functionality out of their box as possible. I am not
saying that their products are useless, but that they take too long to load,
are very full of bugs, and all too often disappoint rather than impress when
used in anger. With custom-made solutions, the opposite is true. I get just
what I need, they're fast and reliable, they always work in anger, and they
seem to scale up far further than the purchasable equivalents. However, I
digress.
I have seen some of my favourite software get stuffed with more features,
but cope less adequately with large projects. For example, Opera browser is
now in version 7, and it takes ever longer to load, and crashes more often.
The best version was 5. I have seen Internet Explorer 6 create havoc with my
PC, where 5.5 never had any problems. The best version was 3. Windows Media
Player (an absolute essential on any PC) lost track of its purpose when it
hit version 7 and beyond. At this point it became a monster and lost its
ease of use and plain veneer that made it a desktop joy instead of a hog. It
also didn't work as well or as fast! The best version was 6.4. Winamp limped
out similarly when it went from version 2 to 3. Real player used to be a
very welcome addition to the capabilities of my PC until it hit version 7
and beyond (version 8 and the current one really suck!). Now I do not use
Real Player and I hate websites that encode .ra .ram and .rm files without
the infinitely preferable .wmv and .m3u Media Player formats. This is
because, despite uninstalling their Real Events add-on package, it insisted
on remaining resident somehow. Every hour it would attempt to go out on the
internet to look up {*word*99} I'd never be interested in (middle of the road
shite whereas I'm into very obscure stuff indeed). This is without the Real
Player portion loaded in my system tray, so where it resided, I do not know.
I won't have stuff like that on my PC, especially when it takes so long to
load anything up, it makes you think the FBI have begun spying on your
interests! Even Quake 3 PR 1.32 has been attacked with the Punkbuster
client, forcing any serious network player to install this buggy, hacked up
{*word*99}, that introduces massive amounts of spyware to your PC, for the purpose
of excluding cheats from the arenas. I stuck proudly and fiercely to version
1.31, and still have great fun online. With hundreds of servers still
running the older 1.31 version of Quake 3, it is obvious I am not the only
one who resents the buggy intrusion into our normally reliable world of
Quake {*word*143}.
Software is getting larger and more unfathomable than ever before. No brand
is exempt. Has Microsoft got something to do with this. Are they forcing all
software industry players to pump their code full of tracking devices,
spyware, and back doors? Is the competition to attract new customers (or
retain old) so strong that software reliability and useability are to be
overlooked in favour of features?
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 
 

Re:VCL is dead ?!?

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote
"Russell Hind" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:3fd097ad$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
We've basically decided that the VCL is no go.
--
Are you trying to say that VCL is no longer pertinent to the current
and near-term future hardware platforms we are currently using? If
so, I do not believe you - you're probably lying. If not, please
explain this statement in much more detail. I, for one, cannot plumb
the depths of obscure reasoning you may have used to conclude the end
of the VCL.

Also, can we not duplicate the functionality of .NET with a new VCL
component? Completely ignore Microsofts .NET libraries, and just get
it functional. If not, a detailed explanation of why not would be
most welcome.
Mr. Hind is not a Borland employee. There is no reason to accuse him of
lying when he is just giving the opinion that the VCL is not in his future
development plans. If you have anger over the fact that the VCL is being
essentially abandoned by Borland, at least for its C++ customers, you should
complain directly to Borland since it is they who have made this decision.
It is Borland's abandonment of the VCL for C++ developers which has led many
C++ programmers, including myself, to look for other avenues of
RAD/component development.
The most attractive avenue for me, as a Windows developers, is .NET and
either C# or Managed C++. Like you I am disappointed at Borland's decision,
but given that their plans for C++ development have included a non-RAD and
non-component product such as CBX is now, I will be looking to .NET and
Microsoft, not Borland, right now for my future development goals. That
doesn't mean I can't continue work on BCB projects, but evidently the VCL
will no longer be part of the future. if CBX ever gets a RAD/Component-based
framework, and Borland ever wakes from their slumber of neither
acknowledging nor supporting C++ customers, I will look at CBX again in the
future.
I agree with you that .NET puts a layer of framework between the programmer
and the Windows API. But like the VCL, the Windows API is still there
through Interop and, in MC++, through IJW ( It Just Works ). If MS
eventually pulls the Windows API completely in favor of just .NET, then that
is an MS and OS issue, not a programming language/environment issue.
 

Re:VCL is dead ?!?

Mark Jacobs wrote:
I inadvertenly cancelled the message quoted below, sorry. To make up for
that, I quoted it in full.
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
Quote
From: "Mark Jacobs" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Subject: VCL is dead ?!?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 13:38:40 -0000
Message-ID: < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
Lines: 94
Newsgroups: borland.public.cppbuilder.non-technical
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
NNTP-Posting-Host: 81.144.157.8
X-Trace: newsgroups.borland.com 1072186719 81.144.157.8 (23 Dec 2003
05:38:39 -0700)

"Russell Hind" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:3fd097ad$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
We've basically decided that the VCL is no go.
--
Are you trying to say that VCL is no longer pertinent to the current and
near-term future hardware platforms we are currently using? If so, I do
not believe you - you're probably lying. If not, please explain this
statement in much more detail. I, for one, cannot plumb the depths of
obscure reasoning you may have used to conclude the end of the VCL.

Also, can we not duplicate the functionality of .NET with a new VCL
component? Completely ignore Microsofts .NET libraries, and just get it
functional. If not, a detailed explanation of why not would be most
welcome.

If none of this information is forthcoming, then, I can only conclude
that alterior motives are behind Borland's abandonment of the VCL. So
far, no one has come forward with a reasonable explanation as to why I,
along with many other developers, have to drop 5 years worth of
learning curve.

It seems that Microsoft are progressively shaving off access to the
inner core functions of a modern PC (possibly for security reasons),
and that programmers who use low level languages like C to access these
features to produce useful, and very fast software, are all getting the
elbow from both Microsoft and Borland (and anyone else it seems). This
is the age of disempowerment.

Here is an article I wrote for my web page at
www.jacobsm.com/techgripe.htm :-
Why does software seem to get worse as time goes on?
by Mark Jacobs - 3/2/2003 9:37:33 pm

As a computer programmer, I use a lot of different types of software,
and brand allegiance becomes second nature after a while. Nowadays, I
just write and use my own utilities for everything, except browsing
newsgroups, mirroring websites, and playing internet media streams.
Under Windows, I have written a media player, an editor and word
processor, a file manager, a database maintenance system, an e-mail
client, an image viewer and magnifier, a graph plotter, a font
previewer and calculator, a simple browser to wrap IE's built-in
functionality, a PC clock synchroniser, and a few other bits and bobs -
simply because necessity is the mother of invention. The software
industry nowadays seems fat and bloated on features I don't personally
use. How many home users are heavily into XML, Java programming, and
.Net stuff? These are more for business use, not the home user who
wants as much functionality out of their box as possible. I am not
saying that their products are useless, but that they take too long to
load, are very full of bugs, and all too often disappoint rather than
impress when used in anger. With custom-made solutions, the opposite is
true. I get just what I need, they're fast and reliable, they always
work in anger, and they seem to scale up far further than the
purchasable equivalents. However, I digress.

I have seen some of my favourite software get stuffed with more
features, but cope less adequately with large projects. For example,
Opera browser is now in version 7, and it takes ever longer to load,
and crashes more often. The best version was 5. I have seen Internet
Explorer 6 create havoc with my PC, where 5.5 never had any problems.
The best version was 3. Windows Media Player (an absolute essential on
any PC) lost track of its purpose when it hit version 7 and beyond. At
this point it became a monster and lost its ease of use and plain
veneer that made it a desktop joy instead of a hog. It also didn't work
as well or as fast! The best version was 6.4. Winamp limped out
similarly when it went from version 2 to 3. Real player used to be a
very welcome addition to the capabilities of my PC until it hit version
7 and beyond (version 8 and the current one really suck!). Now I do not
use Real Player and I hate websites that encode .ra .ram and .rm files
without the infinitely preferable .wmv and .m3u Media Player formats.
This is because, despite uninstalling their Real Events add-on package,
it insisted on remaining resident somehow. Every hour it would attempt
to go out on the internet to look up {*word*99} I'd never be interested in
(middle of the road shite whereas I'm into very obscure stuff indeed).
This is without the Real Player portion loaded in my system tray, so
where it resided, I do not know. I won't have stuff like that on my
PC, especially when it takes so long to load anything up, it makes you
think the FBI have begun spying on your interests! Even Quake 3 PR 1.32
has been attacked with the Punkbuster client, forcing any serious
network player to install this buggy, hacked up {*word*99}, that introduces
massive amounts of spyware to your PC, for the purpose of excluding
cheats from the arenas. I stuck proudly and fiercely to version 1.31,
and still have great fun online. With hundreds of servers still running
the older 1.31 version of Quake 3, it is obvious I am not the only one
who resents the buggy intrusion into our normally reliable world of
Quake {*word*143}.

Software is getting larger and more unfathomable than ever before. No
brand is exempt. Has Microsoft got something to do with this. Are they
forcing all software industry players to pump their code full of
tracking devices, spyware, and back doors? Is the competition to
attract new customers (or retain old) so strong that software
reliability and useability are to be overlooked in favour of features?
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

{smallsort}