Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Is the BCB6 the end of the C++Builder?

2003-10-23 06:43:11 AM
cppbuilder22
Why waste time documenting APIs that are already documented by Microsoft
(and for free)? I would prefer that they spend time fixing bugs and
adding new features.
h^2
 

How many bought it as "shelfware"?
1025.14547744899899679872521 (very accurate)
Since that is 9 separate products I bought, would I count as 9
:-)
Rodolfo
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:58:31 -0400, Chris Uzdavinis wrote:
will be* at some unspecified point in the future. What I'm hearing is a
lot of promises, vague assertions of greatness, and little to show for it
but a buggy IDE that's weaker in every way than the product it's supposed
to replace.
How do I know the 6.0 compiler will be so great? Right now,
it can't even compile threaded code! The "robust" IDE is little better
right now than any number of text editors I can think of, and is useless
on anything less than a fast Pentium III machine with 512 megs of RAM.
Just *claiming* something is the most wonderful thing since sliced bread
doesn't make it so.
mr_organic
 

{smallsort}

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:43:11 -0500, Harold Howe [TeamB] wrote:
document something that it sells...and to do it for the agreed-upon
purchase price of said product.
mr_organic
 

"Harold Howe [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
QC again?
How many new features in Delphi and C++ Builder were actually provided by 3rd
party components?
 

Rodolfo Frino wrote:
happens in real life (plus iterations and permutations that would seem
unimaginable)...
David Erbas-White
 

they document what they do?
The OS should be documented by the provider of the OS. Name another
situation where an OS SDK is documented by another company.
h^2
 

Ronald McDonald wrote:
providing patches. Does that statement sound like I am happy or content
with the number of bugs that have been fixed?
h^2
 

Well no, its just that at present there doesn't seem to be *any* resources
dedicated to fixing C++Builder bugs, and not much more than that fixing Delphi
bugs.
The only product I've seen bug fixes for recently was C#Builder, and this was
because in it's "out of the box state" the product was unusable, as Borland
released it before it was ready.
"Harold Howe [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 17:57:18 -0500, Harold Howe [TeamB] wrote:
vendor I've ever worked with before Borland supplied API docs with the
compiler -- SUN, IBM, Microsoft (Duh), even Fujitsu for God's sake. Back
when Symantec still sold a C++ compiler, they delivered API docs.
Sybase's Power++ supplied API docs. And they did it as part of the
original purchase price.
It's Borland's responsibility to ship current API documentation for every
SDK they include in the compiler. If I have to rely on Microsoft for
documentation, I might as well rely on them for my compiler too. After
all, Microsoft will be assuming that in their documentation.
This isn't an idle problem, either -- Borland's headers often differ from
Microsoft's. For example, Borland's fcntl.h doesn't include O_RANDOM or
O_TEMPORARY, but Microsoft's does. This means that lots of programs that
assume that definition will not compile*. In my view, Borland is
responsible for documenting that difference. If you rely on Microsoft's
docs, you will be led astray.
*Berkeley DB is one such program.
mr_organic
 

"Mike Swaim" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Public perception is important, so of course you're not going to see TeamB
venting very much publically. But private... that's a very different
matter!!!!! :-)
Gambit
 

Ronald McDonald wrote:
supposed to come from that will document the win32 API?
That is my point. Whoever Borland grabs internally to document the SDK,
they will be pulling them away from something that was more important.
Unless they ask a lawyer to do it.
h^2
 

Sun C++ on Solaris or IBM on OS/2.
license the docs from Microsoft? The answer is almost irrelevant, as you
are citing examples of compilers that have gone under.
Borland supplies API docs. You just aren't happy with them. You want
them to invest time and resources into making them better. I don't see
the point.
h^2
 

On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 18:11:54 -0500, Harold Howe [TeamB] wrote:
forbid they actually put enough resources on a project to do it right....
mr_organic
 

prefer that they hire someone to fix bugs rather than document something
I can already get for free. Based last quarters results, and this
quarters preliminary results, they don't have the cash to hire anyone.
In the end, the cost of documenting the OS SDK will be passed on to the
consumer. This isn't cuba. So how much are you willing to pay for this?
(didn't I ask this already)? If you think that features just show up for
free in the end product, you're smoking something funny.
h^2