Board index » cppbuilder » C++Builder survey

C++Builder survey


2005-02-18 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
 
 

Re:C++Builder survey

BigStew wrote:
Quote
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?
So I'm not the only one. I thought I missed and didn't want to mention
something that would have been obvious to the masses.
Ah well, I filled it, and I hope many will.
 

Re:C++Builder survey

Quote
Funny thing is, I only found out about this survey in the Delphi non-tech
group.
Me too... anyway, already filled it.
--
Rodrigo Gómez
rgomez.msa.com.mx/gallery/
"BigStew" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >escribi?en el mensaje
Quote
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


 

{smallsort}

Re:C++Builder survey

BigStew wrote:
Quote
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?
So do I use builder for 'Ansi/ISO conformance'
If I ignore the option, then it means it is not important.
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)
 

Re:C++Builder survey

Alisdair Meredith [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
I found myself using the "Other" choice quite frequently as a way of
"correcting" what I thought were poor choices in the construction of the
survey. Still, it's good that they're asking the questions.
--
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]
 

Re:C++Builder survey

"Alisdair Meredith [TeamB]"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
BigStew wrote:

>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?

So do I use builder for 'Ansi/ISO conformance'

If I ignore the option, then it means it is not important.
If I tick it, then it means I think BCB is good enough already.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...
Same thing in a few places. Filled in a lot of "other"
 

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
Quote
So do I use builder for 'Ansi/ISO conformance'

If I ignore the option, then it means it is not important.
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)
 

Re:C++Builder survey

Alisdair Meredith [TeamB] wrote:
Quote

So do I use builder for 'Ansi/ISO conformance'

If I ignore the option, then it means it is not important.
If I tick it, then it means I think BCB is good enough already.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't...

My thoughts exactly when i filled it out!
Cheers
Russell
 

Re:C++Builder survey

BigStew wrote:
Quote
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?
I am surprised that the survey has not generated more discussion in this
group. Even with its shortcomings (as has been pointed out here) it is an
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?
 

Re:C++Builder survey

Gord < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
BigStew wrote:

>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?

I am surprised that the survey has not generated more discussion in
this group. Even with its shortcomings (as has been pointed out here)
it is an 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?


A problem I have with the survey is this: what possible good can it do at
this point? If they're not well into a feature-freeze for the upcoming
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
 

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:
Quote
BigStew wrote:


>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?


I am surprised that the survey has not generated more discussion in this
group. Even with its shortcomings (as has been pointed out here) it is an
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?

 

Re:C++Builder survey

Randall Parker wrote:
Quote
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.
I honestly don't know if that's the case or not. Certainly in
person, a Dev Rel person I asked about VCL & C++ seemed 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.
 

Re:C++Builder survey

Brion L. Webster wrote:
Quote
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".
Actually, that's not quite accurate. It's not my responsibility to
repeat announcements on our newsgroups, and I'll never commit to doing
it.
Quote
While that, um, "irritates"* me, it's also indicative
of Borland's current preferred communication mechanism.
I think you need to reread the rest of that thread. You are grossly
misrepresenting my statements.
Quote
The survey's on BDN. Borland thinks more people look at BDN than
at the newsgroups.
No, Borland *knows* over 100 times more people look at BDN than the
newsgroups.
--
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
 

Re:C++Builder survey

John Kaster (Borland) wrote:
Quote
Brion L. Webster wrote:

>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".

Actually, that's not quite accurate. It's not my responsibility to
repeat announcements on our newsgroups, and I'll never commit to
doing it.
Starting from this message in delphi.non-technical
From: "Liz" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
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
>of Borland's current preferred communication mechanism.

I think you need to reread the rest of that thread. You are
grossly misrepresenting my statements.
I don't think it's gross at all. I feel very strongly that I do
have excuses, plural. Sure, I summarized, but I honestly don't see
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
>than at the newsgroups.

No, Borland knows over 100 times more people look at BDN than the
newsgroups.
Thinks is a poor choice of words, perhaps. I didn't want to invite
"prove it" arguments. It doesn't matter what "reality" is, if the
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
 

Re:C++Builder survey

Brion L. Webster wrote:
Quote

"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.

I had quit looking at BDN because it was a graveyard as far as C++Builder info. I guess I'll start
monitoring again.
--
-Michael Gillen