Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Borland has broken it's promises once again

2005-11-25 02:44:22 AM
cppbuilder99
David Erbas-White wrote:
survey takers) did know. There was research done again when the BCB was decided
to be done. The original surveys were about whether to do a C++ RAD tool first
or a Pascal based one.
the more compliant compiler for the less one over in VC++. History doesn't back
up your claim. BCB1 compiler was more compliant than the VC++ compiler at the
time. It wasn't until VS 2003 that VC++ became the more complaint compiler.
of any significance and indeed would lose them some of their existing customer
base (which is why there are still people out there using BC++ 5.02 and OWL).
And yes BC++ still has sales every quarter at Borland. There is no indication
at all that the language the framework is written in has had a significant
impact on BCB sales at all.
now indicating that a C++ VCL will not drive increases in revenue. This was
researched again for CBX on exactly this. Whether a C++ VCL would improve the
C++ revenue stream. The reality was that it wasn't going to.
Funny that the few who have clamored for a C++ VCL over the years ignore the
fact that they would lose 100% of the Delphi component market which is what make
the VCL so enticing in the first place. A C++ based VCL would not be able to
work with Delphi based components. These reasons have been gone into in the
past and I don't intend to discuss that again, use google for reasons why you
can not do things like descending from a Delphi component in C++ and then
descending from the C++ back in Delphi doesn't work.
The BCB market is way too small for DevExpress to write a C++ equivalent of
their components and now maintain two different code base. They have the same
resource problems (not enough revenue to justify the expenses) that Borland
has. So who wants to lose all ability to use DevExpress, ReportBuilder, Rave,
InfoPower, Orpheous, JEDI VCL and every other 3rd party Delphi based VCL
Components (100's of thousands of these) in exchange for a C++ VCL?
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
(Please do not email me directly unless asked. Thank You)
Your friends will know you better in the first minute you meet than your
acquaintances will know you in a thousand years. (R Bach)
 

have been trying to point out to Jeff, but apparently to no avail... :(
I guess he got offended when I questioned his wisdom in blindly believing in
survey numbers...
 

Wow you love to jump ahead of yourself don't you...
using C++ VCL.
In doing so, Borland would have lost its Pascal users. This is the reason --
Pascal has more users and it's too much of a risk to go the other way. Not
some surveys you were saying. That's all I was pointing out. And that's the
reason I was saying you confused my post with the rest. I was not saying if
VCL was written in C++, Borland would have dominated C++ market share.
A C++ based VCL would not be able to
Again, not the point of my original post.
thousands of VCL components. Except now they'll be in C++.
 

{smallsort}

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
the savings we get from Delphi components are lost by the time we
have to spend with bugs in the VCL.
Remember that some of us were looking into CBX. Besides, what would
prevent the advent of a new C++ component market?
 

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
framework could have been used by different compilers and platforms.
But since that would contradict the BCB sells perhaps regarding revenue
basing VCL on Pascal was the right decision - I don't know.
compliant framework and then dropped CBX because of that survey ?
Having bought an enterprise version of CBX I better don't continue
writing statements about that issue.
 

Zach Saw < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
the best solution, as if most market participants are working with perfect
information. The fact of the matter is that developers are usually clueless as
to all the alternatives available in the marketplace, and tend to organize
themselves into primitive tribes based on those tools in which they have
acquired significant skills due to past experience. Rational analysis is a
luxury seldom affordable to the typical customer, no matter how much they may
fancy themselves to be devotees of rationalism, the cheap knock-off known as
Objectivism, or any of the related philosophies that people learn about in
Philosophy 101 but never actually apply in real life. The realist knows that
failure in the marketplace does not mean a product was inferior, just that it
did not achieve enough mindshare with customers.
You can build a better mousetrap, but only a hopeless idealist would think the
world will then beat a path to your door.
--
Check out the latest beta preview of
JSNewsreader at
www.jsnewsreader.com/Preview3.zip
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 1.0.4.1684
 

Andre Kaufmann wrote:
also looked into the possibility of actually doing a C++ VCL for CBX. This is
what the research (not survey) showed that they would not drive sales due to
having this so that idea was shelved. CBX not being actively developed right
now has more to do with the fact Primetime (the IDE it is based on) is being
replaced with Eclipse than any other factor. When CoreSDP comes out with the
C++ stuff, I would not be surprised at all if CBX comes back to life then.
was always a plan. CBX real was market target was the 72% of the C++ developers
that are not Windows developers.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
(Please do not email me directly unless asked. Thank You)
Your friends will know you better in the first minute you meet than your
acquaintances will know you in a thousand years. (R Bach)
 

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
only has one stage of 'creation' <g,d,rlh>
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)
 

Duane Hebert wrote:
objects is an interesting exception. Note that 'initialization' is far
from trivial when you read all the rules in C++, but most of those
cover corner cases, such as initializing objects without a
user-declared constructor (eg ints!)
IIUC Delphi construction correctly, the following stages happen:
i/ Object is allocated enough memory to hold all data
ii/ allocated memory is initialized to zero
iii/ ctor is called for most-derived class
iv/ most derived ctor chains a base class ctor
v/ and so on down to TObject ctor
vi/ AfterConstruction virtual function is called
vii/ Object is fully constructed, return control to calling function
Note that the OnCreate event is a property of TCustomForm, and so will
typically fire during phase (iv)
Also note that (i) is an interesting problem when dealing with virtual
constructors, as VCL allows constructing for class-type objects and
relies on this when streaming in from the form DFM files - hence the
need for virtual ctors in the first place!
At all times, virtual functions dispatch on the most derived type,
which is why Delphi calls the most derived ctor first. During
construction, you should prepare all members of your class that may be
required to handle and overridden virtual function before chaining your
base class ctor. This is why Delphi allows you to control timing of
chaining the base ctor call - it is your responsibility to make your
class usable in event of a virtual function call. This is where C++
has a problem, as there is no way to hook in that initialization stage
prior to chaining the base ctor.
Microsoft have an interesting solution to this in C++/CLI, where they
change to order of construction for ref classes, so they construct
members before bases, and destructors destroy bases before members.
This allows you to guarantee your members during virtual dispatch, just
as with Delphi. You still lack Delphi's flexibility to add code in the
ctor either side of the base call though.
--
AlisdairM(TeamB)
 

"Alisdair Meredith [TeamB]"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
in Delphispeak which I'm not quite fluent int. I didn't even want to
ask with "filling object with values" meant.
Actually, in a way this makes the point of the conversation. C++ is
a difficult enough language to master without having to learn Delphi
AND the gotchas caused by sticking it under C++.
 

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
if some sort of GUI/RAD was added. Too bad it was dropped (or
temporarily dropped or whatever). A cross platform C++ ide with
Dinkumware and GUI/RAD. I would think that would sell.
 

Edward Diener < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
provide a function that returns a name-to-factory table, or somesuch.
Then component developers would just have a little more boilerplate
code to write in order for it to work. Not attractive, but doesn't
require a change to a compiler.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote: "New, pure C++ RAD visual design environment"
bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,31277,00.html
think that this market creates enough revenue for another compiler vendor.
But CBX is history and a new P/BCB version is shipped in a few days,
which I currently need very badly, since I've been hit by Helena again.
Andre
 

At 13:31:19, 25.11.2005, Alisdair Meredith [TeamB] wrote:
placement new or whatever you call it. So the C++ mechanism is different,
and not necessarily tied to the class, but it can affect the same stages.
Since in Delphi, all objects are derived from TObject, it made sense to
put the functionality there. This greatly simplified language design, I
guess.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood
by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it's
the exact opposite."
- Paul Dirac (1902-1984)
 

At 15:04:03, 25.11.2005, Duane Hebert wrote:
values that happens in the contructors and their ancestor constructors,
i.e. the initialization of the members with meaningful values.
Delphi objects, like C++ objects, are allocated (in C++, this can be in
different places, in Delphi it is always on the heap). Then the allocated
memory is filled with 0, then the constructor code is called, which sets
the member values, opens resources, etc. In Delphi, for each of these
stages there are hooks, virtual methods, that can be overridden. There is
even one additional one, that is called when the code of the constructor
has finished. In C++, these hooks are partly covered by the "new"
mechanism.
ISTM that you saw construction purely as the part where the constructor
code runs.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"In this world, nothing is certain but death and taxes."
-- Benjamin Franklin.