Board index » cppbuilder » C++Builder survey
BigStew
CBuilder Developer |
BigStew
CBuilder Developer |
C++Builder survey2005-02-18 11:38:01 PM cppbuilder112 bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,32982,00.html Funny thing is, I only found out about this survey in the Delphi non-tech group. No mention of it in the Builder groups? Stewart Gaskell |
OBones
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-18 11:53:15 PM
Re:C++Builder survey
BigStew wrote:
Quotebdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,32982,00.html Ah well, I filled it, and I hope many will. |
Rodrigo Gómez
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-19 02:24:21 AM
Re:C++Builder surveyQuoteFunny thing is, I only found out about this survey in the Delphi non-tech Rodrigo Gómez rgomez.msa.com.mx/gallery/ "BigStew" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje Quotebdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,32982,00.html {smallsort} |
Alisdair Meredith [TeamB]
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-19 02:31:30 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
BigStew wrote:
Quotebdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,32982,00.html If I tick it, then it means I think BCB is good enough already. Damned if you do, damned if you don't... AlisdairM(TeamB) |
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-19 02:38:45 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
Alisdair Meredith [TeamB] wrote:
QuoteDamned if you do, damned if you don't... survey. Still, it's good that they're asking the questions. -- Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB] |
Duane Hebert
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-19 03:05:05 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
"Alisdair Meredith [TeamB]"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message QuoteBigStew wrote: |
BigStew
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-19 06:06:57 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
Yes, it is sufficiently vague to make this survey as useful as most other
surveys :-) Stewart Gaskell "Alisdair Meredith [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message QuoteSo do I use builder for 'Ansi/ISO conformance' |
Russell Hind
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-20 04:39:09 PM
Re:C++Builder survey
Alisdair Meredith [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
Russell |
Gord
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-22 05:58:59 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
BigStew wrote:
Quotebdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,32982,00.html opportunity for us to have some input into the process. Hopefully everyone who reads this newsgroup has filled the survey out. Once again though, you have to wonder why Borland is so quiet in their promotion of such things. Why didn't anyone from Borland come to this newsgroup and let us know it exists? Why didn't I receive an email about it? |
mr_organic
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-22 06:22:24 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
Gord < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
QuoteBigStew wrote: release, then we can forget about it until some time next year...if then. Now, maybe they're trying to figure out for a *post*-Delphi 2005 release, but if so -- I still don't understand what they're trying to do. Given the constraints of a C++ "personality" inside of Delphi rather thana standalone product, all I want is two things: 1. VCL parity with Delphi. 2. A database layer that doesn't completely suck (either fix DBExpress or get rid of it!) A distant third would be better STL/standard library conformance, but we're not likely to get that without a new compiler. mr_organic |
Randall Parker
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-22 06:31:44 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
Gord,
We are still not very important to Borland. We have become more important to some Delphi users who happen to want us to vote for a 64 bit compiler. Otherwise, we are still the forgotten backwater. Gord wrote: QuoteBigStew wrote: |
Brion L. Webster
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-23 01:23:27 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
Randall Parker wrote:
QuoteWe are still not very important to Borland. We have become more ashamed of the situation than ignorant. That, plus the vitriol I've seen around here, suggests they'd be afraid to come in here. On the other hand, us Delphi folks were recently taken to task for expecting announcements via newsgroup posts or direct email. Someone in the UK had a Borland presentation, and half the folks in delphi.non-tech hadn't heard about it until after it was over. Someone asked why it hadn't been announced in the newsgroups or via email, and the answer was basically "it's your responsibility to check the BDN web site, not ours to repeat announcements everywhere". While that, um, "irritates"* me, it's also indicative of Borland's current preferred communication mechanism. The survey's on BDN. Borland thinks more people look at BDN than at the newsgroups. Certainly a lot of the existing C++ Builder user base no longer reads these newsgroups. -Brion * insert something far stronger than "irritates". I think it is Borland's job to announce often, in multiple places, etc. Customer outreach, just plain communication, is the [vendor,support agency,person who wants my money]'s job, not mine as the customer. |
John Kaster (Borland)
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-23 02:49:19 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
Brion L. Webster wrote:
QuoteSomeone asked why it hadn't been announced in the newsgroups or via it. QuoteWhile that, um, "irritates"* me, it's also indicative QuoteThe survey's on BDN. Borland thinks more people look at BDN than -- John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk Features and bugs: qc.borland.com Get source: cc.borland.com If it's not here, it's not happening: ec.borland.com |
Brion L. Webster
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-23 04:04:14 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
John Kaster (Borland) wrote:
QuoteBrion L. Webster wrote: Subject: Re: UK - Anyone going to the technical seminar? Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 09:48:22 -0800 Message-ID: <42138766$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM > and reading your responses, you did clarify it's not you, and you said other parts of Borland should be doing more. But you also said: "However, people on THIS newsgroup have NO excuse for not looking at EventCentral." (meaning the Delphi non-tech ng) The same thing obviously applies to this newsgroup as well. Seems like C++ folks should be checking BDN, regardless of their preferred mechanism of communicating with Borland, since no one bothered pointing out the survey. Quote>While that, um, "irritates"* me, it's also indicative the distinction. Whether you actually said it or not, Borland actions have made it clear that neither direct email nor newsgroup announcements are to be expected. Quote>The survey's on BDN. Borland thinks more people look at BDN powers that be believe something different than you do. Therefore, accept that the PTB believe it, and adjust accordingly. I do wonder if the people that check BDN care as passionately as the ones who still read C++ non-tech. I suspect that those who are here would make far better Barbarians than the BDN readers, if there were still a Barbarian program, but again, I can't prove it. I just can't understand why, if the survey was important to Borland, it wouldn't have been announced here, sent as an email to those who subscribed for those kind of things, etc. I can understand *you* are busy, but Borland has other people, including, presumably, a product manager who cares about the survey results. If this is the community that created the open letter, shouldn't they be more proactively "outreached"? Finally, I do need to make it clear. While your (John Kaster) comments are the unfortunate spark to this little bit of bitterness, it's Borland the company's actions that are at fault, not you. In the same post I quoted, you also said: "I'm not making an excuse for Borland. There are certainly lots of other ways customers should be getting notified about things from Borland, provided those customers INDICATE they want Borland to contact them." Which indicates 2 things to me: 1) Borland could do more, and 2) Borland shouldn't be spamming customers. I respect both items! -Brion |
Michael Gillen
CBuilder Developer |
2005-02-23 04:55:18 AM
Re:C++Builder survey
Brion L. Webster wrote:
Quote
-- -Michael Gillen |