Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Re: Borland vs. Microsoft


2003-10-21 06:12:48 AM
cppbuilder53
"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Yes, but the other carmakers introduced new engines, powertrains, and
frames in addition to the outer-body. All Borland seems to be offering is
an outer-body and custom paint-job. In other words, they are getting out
of the auto manufacturing business and into the aftermarket alterations
market (like Saleen does with Mustangs). It's a smaller and much more
fickle market.
An interesting analogy. I have the same concerns. At least the Delphi for
.NET product will have a compiler which it can call its own...
Dave
 
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Robert Love wrote:
Quote
I don't see this ask double-talk, or marketing speak.
I do.
--
.. P.
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Phoenix wrote:
Quote
Robert Love wrote:

>I don't see this ask double-talk, or marketing speak.

I do.
Noted. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"The difference between 'involvement' and 'commitment' is like an
eggs-and-ham breakfast: the chicken was 'involved' - the pig was
'committed'."
- unknown
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
I can't believe I used "it's" instead of "its". That's one of my
pet-peeves in wrong usages of English, and I just did it.

One of those days I guess.
It's got to be because its monday.
h^2
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

I cannot believe this. I have made a double typo with the word gone, a typo
with double n is a normal typo,
but a typo with triple n is ridiculous. Must have been the wind :-)
Rodolfo
"Rodolfo Frino" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
C++ Builder? gonne with the xWind, Borland? gonnne with the Bill's wind.

Bill Gathes
Micro666 Corporation
(On behalf of the devil)


 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Quote
Maybe Borland hired "Baghdad Bob" as their new PR guy....
No need, John has been in this role for sometime now. :-)
Rodolfo
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

So what is the meaning of "it's" because my English teacher was unable to
decide whether the apostrophe (watch my spelling) was for "it is" or whether
it was meant for singular possesive, i.e. it's book!
Teacher said it could be used either way.
My pet peeve (thank-you Gilmer) is the incorrect use of "you're" or "your".
:)
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

"It's" is always a contraction of "it is". The possessive of "it" is
"its" (no apostrophe).
David Erbas-White
Brent wrote:
Quote
So what is the meaning of "it's" because my English teacher was unable to
decide whether the apostrophe (watch my spelling) was for "it is" or whether
it was meant for singular possesive, i.e. it's book!

Teacher said it could be used either way.

My pet peeve (thank-you Gilmer) is the incorrect use of "you're" or "your".
:)


 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

"Brent" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
So what is the meaning of "it's" because my English teacher was
unable to
decide whether the apostrophe (watch my spelling) was for "it is" or
whether
it was meant for singular possesive, i.e. it's book!
Think of it as being like his (not hi's). The possessive pronoun has no
apostrophe.
I'm not impressed with your teacher. :-)
--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Didn't you know that "its" is the contraction for "it's"? its a wildcard :-)
Rodolfo
"David Erbas-White" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
"It's" is always a contraction of "it is". The possessive of "it" is
"its" (no apostrophe).

David Erbas-White

Brent wrote:
>So what is the meaning of "it's" because my English teacher was unable
to
>decide whether the apostrophe (watch my spelling) was for "it is" or
whether
>it was meant for singular possesive, i.e. it's book!
>
>Teacher said it could be used either way.
>
>My pet peeve (thank-you Gilmer) is the incorrect use of "you're" or
"your".
>:)
>
>

 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
"Brent" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>So what is the meaning of "it's" because my English teacher was
>unable to decide whether the apostrophe (watch my spelling) was for
>"it is" or whether it was meant for singular possesive, i.e. it's
>book!

Think of it as being like his (not hi's). The possessive pronoun has
no apostrophe.

I'm not impressed with your teacher. :-)
Neither am I. It's hard to believe that an English teacher at any level
doesn't know that a language has its own rules, and those rules need to be
followed for proper grammatical constructs in a sentence.
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

We have a program in the UK called "Grumpy old men". In it 40-something men
(i.e. age) complain about youngsters nowadays. One guy was complaining about
the language used for texting and said that he annoys his friends by sending
them text messages with correct grammar and punctuation. (He has an english
degree!)
Rgds Pete
"Edward Diener" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
"Brent" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>So what is the meaning of "it's" because my English teacher was
>unable to decide whether the apostrophe (watch my spelling) was for
>"it is" or whether it was meant for singular possesive, i.e. it's
>book!

Think of it as being like his (not hi's). The possessive pronoun has
no apostrophe.

I'm not impressed with your teacher. :-)
Neither am I. It's hard to believe that an English teacher at any level
doesn't know that a language has its own rules, and those rules need to be
followed for proper grammatical constructs in a sentence.
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Rodolfo Frino wrote:
Quote
>Maybe Borland hired "Baghdad Bob" as their new PR guy....

No need, John has been in this role for sometime now. :-)
Really? When has John ever told any lies here?
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens."
- Jimi Hendrix
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

Harold Howe [TeamB] wrote:
Quote

>Why can't Borland produce a better C# compiler?

Because there isn't much room to be any better. You can't make a C#
compiler that is more standards compliant than MS C#, since what
standard there is was written by MS. The only things that you can
seriously improve upon are :

- compilation speed
- execution speed
- code size.

I don't think many C# developers are looking for better compile times.
C# is already fast in that regard, similar to delphi and java in terms
of compile times. As for execution speed, from what little I know of IL,
it is not a heavily optimized instruction set. Most optimizations are
done by the JIT.

As for code size, I doubt that many C# developers are yearning to shave
a couple hundred kilobytes from their program that relies on the 20 MB
.net runtime.

It is not just a question of making a better C# compiler. It is a
question of making a compiler that is so much better that people will
pay for it. I just don't see it.
OK, you may go away with C++. If this is so, why does Borland bother to
produce its own Java compiler, bm, instead of using javac (optional) or
jikes (optional)?
Francisco
 

Re:Re: Borland vs. Microsoft

"Phoenix" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
If that's what you read into that, I'll just leave you to your daydreams. The whole thing sounds like just so much more marketing double-talk. Say a lot, but don't be at all specific.
While I certainly hope that there is a D8 or Octane for Win32, if
Borland provides even a maintenance releasee for D7 that addresses the
bugs, I think this is sufficient to carry me through the end-of-life for
Win32. D7 supports GP and MS will not release another non-.NET desktop
OS. If Octane is a good .NET development system (and it looks like
Borland isn't on its deathbed from self-inflicted foot wounds ), I'll
switch to that for future .NET development. If not, it'll be VS or
perhaps something else.