Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...


2003-12-05 02:09:51 AM
cppbuilder82
Randall Parker < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Hendrik Schober wrote:


>FWIW, Win64 is already there.

So one should be able to write native compiled Win64 apps for Itanium and Opteron.
AFAIK, there's a version of VC that does
just that. Somewhere on MS' site there's
a Win64 SDK that includes this compiler.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Quote
You can see this with 95-98-2000-XP evolution.
95-98: worth having as new USB etc.
98-2k or NT-2k: worth having as better GUI/tools/stability
2k-XP: questionable upgrade - lots of pretty pictures but why else? and
lots
of businesses say this also.
XP-LongHorn: why upgrade?
Rgds Pete
It's kinda funny you put it this way. It's one of the things that makes me
wonder about whether .NET is a sound move financially for Microsoft. While
it does save them and their customers from a lot of re-coding as new
versions of the base OS are released, what incentive would someone have to
buy Longhorn if they already have a stable implementation of their
applications on XP w/.NET? As far as I can see, there would be no incentive
to upgrade the OS if the features available through the .NET platform
weren't changing.
T
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Thomas J. Theobald wrote:
Quote
>You can see this with 95-98-2000-XP evolution.
>95-98: worth having as new USB etc.
>98-2k or NT-2k: worth having as better GUI/tools/stability
>2k-XP: questionable upgrade - lots of pretty pictures but why else?
>and lots of businesses say this also.
>XP-LongHorn: why upgrade?
>Rgds Pete

It's kinda funny you put it this way. It's one of the things that
makes me wonder about whether .NET is a sound move financially for
Microsoft. While it does save them and their customers from a lot of
re-coding as new versions of the base OS are released, what incentive
would someone have to buy Longhorn if they already have a stable
implementation of their applications on XP w/.NET?
The usual MS way of getting people to upgrade to a new version of Windows
will be used. They will add features to the new version which will be
unavailable to the previous version, and which will work in .NET only on the
given OS or above. Using the .NET functionality, when running on a version
of the OS which doesn't support the capability, will gracefully degrade to
older functionality or none at all as the case may be.
This is all pretty reasonable. Unless one sees an advantage in the latest
OS, one sticks to a previous version. Of course, at some time MS will no
longer support a previous OS version, which will also mean that a given .NET
release will not be available for it also.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Quote
The usual MS way of getting people to upgrade to a new version of Windows
will be used. They will add features to the new version which will be
unavailable to the previous version,
Sneaky bastards, those guys at Microsoft. New features to get people to buy
a new version of your product? That's just unethical!
--
marc hoffman
RemObjects Software, Inc.
www.remobjects.com
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

On 04-Dec-03, marc hoffman said:
Quote
Sneaky bastards, those guys at Microsoft. New features to get people
to buy a new version of your product? That's just unethical!
And even worse, they may actually be beneficial features, perhaps
affecting positively a majority of customers! Totally unfair!
--
Bill
--------
"Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it
public property." -- Walter Williams
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

William Meyer wrote:
Quote
On 04-Dec-03, marc hoffman said:

>Sneaky bastards, those guys at Microsoft. New features to get people
>to buy a new version of your product? That's just unethical!

And even worse, they may actually be beneficial features, perhaps
affecting positively a majority of customers! Totally unfair!
I wasn't being sarcastic when I said this was the usual way MS gets users to
upgrade to a new version of Windows. I meant it as a realistic compliment.
What MS does is perfectly normal and helpful to customers of their OSs, just
as any product manufacturer sells a new version of a product by making
improvements to it which will get people to buy.
My comment was in answer to Mr. Theobald's wondering whether .NET was a good
idea from MS, since he apparently saw little incentive in .NET architecture
to get customers to upgrade to the latest MS OS. I was merely pointing out
that the incentive to upgrade has little to do with .NET functionality since
applications written for a previous version of .NET should still work with
the subsequent versions of a Windows OS until MS decides to no longer
support the previous version. Given MS's record of supporting technology in
Windows far longer than Borland supports their own technologies, I wouldn't
ever worry about modules written using .NET quickly becoming obsolete.
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

"William Meyer" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
On 04-Dec-03, marc hoffman said:

>Sneaky bastards, those guys at Microsoft. New features to get people
>to buy a new version of your product? That's just unethical!

And even worse, they may actually be beneficial features, perhaps
affecting positively a majority of customers! Totally unfair!

And then there's BOB :).
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

On 05-Dec-03, Jeff Overcash (TeamB) said:
Quote
And then there's BOB :).
Good grief, I thought he was just a distant, ugly memory! <g>
--
Bill
--------
"Just because an establishment deals with the public doesn't make it
public property." -- Walter Williams
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Quote
>The C++ standard is a big standard. Just because you can compile some standard C++ to
>IL does not mean you can compile it all. Can you compile code that uses lots of
>templates to IL?

Yes. (See my reply to Peter.)
MSIL doesnt support templates. If you compile STD C++, it will only
run unmanaged.
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Mike Margerum < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>>The C++ standard is a big standard. Just because you can compile some standard C++ to
>>IL does not mean you can compile it all. Can you compile code that uses lots of
>>templates to IL?
>
>Yes. (See my reply to Peter.)

MSIL doesnt support templates.
So what? Intel machine code doesn't support
templates either. This didn't stop compiler
writers from writing C++ compilers that emit
Intel machine code.
Quote
If you compile STD C++, it will only
run unmanaged.
What you mean is, this won't be .NET generics
which could be used from other .NET languages.
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

"Alex Bakaev [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
How does one provoke an OS crash?
Syncing the address book of my PDA fulfills this requirement very nicely
and reproducibly on my Linux box.
 

Re:Re: Hello VS, goodbye Borland...

Thomas Maeder [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
"Alex Bakaev [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:


>How does one provoke an OS crash?


Syncing the address book of my PDA fulfills this requirement very nicely
and reproducibly on my Linux box.
Must be a HW problem <g>
.a