Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...


2003-11-14 07:16:59 PM
cppbuilder77
Quote
I was wondering how that was going to work. It sounds cool, if it
works nicely. Is there any timescale at all for when the next version
of CBX will be released?

Graeme
I asked that to a Borland's representative here in Brasil last Wednesday and
it seems to be something like the second semester of 2004.
Saulo
 
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Marcelo R. Lopez, Jr. wrote:
Quote
That STILL doesn't say that Borland wasn't in the position to have sold
it's own VCL PACK.......( which STILL wouldn't have stopped others from
doing it <you HAVE been to Torry's Delphi Pages haven't you ?>)..or
included so much nicer a set of controls if it had felt so inclined.
They have stated often enough that they primarily make development tools,
and that components should be left to third parties. They only provide
the infrastructure and basic stuff built on it.
And yes, I have seen Torry's and the DSP. But to use the VCL, one needed
a Delphi compiler (even BCB uses the Delphi compiler), and a compiler
that could handle the extensions.
So to whom should they have sold it, except to existing users of their
products?
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but
when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

With all the food that is on the plate I believe that is reasonable to
believe that they will take at least an year to deliver the next major
version (2.0).
Many things that will be included there will derive from JBuilder
developments that are still on the works.
Saulo
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

On 14 Nov 2003 03:38:56 -0700, "Ken de Camargo Jr."
<rb.moc.arret@jcrk>wrote:
Quote

Take their words with a grain of salt. My previous encounters with reps
in Brazil made me believe that quite often they either haven't got a
clue or are delibereately misleading.
(FYI) On the English page of your website, you have the word
"downloading" misspelt. Also the link to the lua programming language
doesn't work at the present time.
What do you think of Lua - is it easy to learn and use?
Graeme
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

"John Kaster (Borland)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I understand that. I still feel the code name would be appropriate,
because VCL is not dying by any means. Extending its reach to .NET is
quite the opposite. If anything, it will be even more important for
people who want to support both Windows platforms for the next <x>
years.
Yes, I think that -- potentially -- VCL could be the best option for those
who want to keep a foot in both camps (Win32 and .NET) over the next few
years while maintaining a single code base. It is just a shame that this
whole BCB thing has sent the wrong signals to everybody.
Dave
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

"Dave Jewell" wrote:
Quote
"John Kaster (Borland)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:3fb43371$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>I understand that. I still feel the code name would be appropriate,
>because VCL is not dying by any means. Extending its reach to .NET is
>quite the opposite. If anything, it will be even more important for
>people who want to support both Windows platforms for the next <x>
>years.

Yes, I think that -- potentially -- VCL could be the best option for those
who want to keep a foot in both camps (Win32 and .NET) over the next few
years while maintaining a single code base. It is just a shame that this
whole BCB thing has sent the wrong signals to everybody.
I agree that the signals send out by Borland were very unclear. But who
interpreted them in the negative, amplified them and tansmitted them
further?
Peter
PS. and wouldn't listen to every reasonable response....
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Quote
It seems to me, that's unknown and depends on how the RTTI/ component
streaming etc that Borland are adding will work.
No, it is not unknown. This work is being done by the wx people and will
be a standard part of wxWindows, and will work with any compiler (as
stated by Bruneau Babet at borcon)
Quote
and it's also possible that Borland will create some closed source wx
components as anyone is entitled to do.
They do the same thing in JBuilder. JBuilder users who want the freedom
to drop Borland simply don't use them. In fact, I would wager that most
JBuilder developers don't them (I know I don't).
Quote
object Button1: TButton
Left = 320
Top = 168
Width = 75
Height = 25
Caption = 'clear memo'
TabOrder = 1
OnClick = Button1Click
end

that gets interpreted at runtime, then you need startup code that is
CBuilderX specific and to maintain it, you need the CBuilderX RAD
designer.
Why would you need CBX to edit a text file? If component streaming like
this is added to wxWindows, what would prevent someone else from
creating a DFM editor?
Quote
You don't have to use the RAD designer though and the dfm info would
hopefully be "C++ code" rather than OP or some new scheme.
It certainly won't be OP.
h^2
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Peter,
Where do most of the negative signals come from? Borland. How? Well,
every time one of us hits a bug in BCB that has been there since v6 came
out we get a negative signal. We also waste time and that means wasted
money.
No, Borland's responses (or, rather, lack thereof) are not reasonable.
Peter Agricola wrote:
Quote
I agree that the signals send out by Borland were very unclear. But who
interpreted them in the negative, amplified them and tansmitted them
further?


Peter

PS. and wouldn't listen to every reasonable response....


 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Quote
Well, I just got my latest (and it looks like, last) printed copy of C++
Builder Developer's Journal in the mail. Along with the November 2003
issue is a note that says that the December issue will not be published,
that the subscription will be extended by one month to make up for the
December issue, and that all future issues will be online.
We've had a growing number of subscribers request the Journal as a PDF
online, because of problems with slow delivery (it has been taking up to 2
months to arrive in some countries). The number of online-only subscribers
has continued to grow, while the mailed subscriptions have not. Because of
printing and mailing costs, it came to a point where we had to make a
decision to either raise the subscription price of the Journal, or go
online-only (and lower the price). In the interest of the current
subscribers, we decided to go online. The Journal will continue to be
published as long as there are BCB developers out there who want to receive
it.
David Bridges, Editor
C++Builder Developer's Journal
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

"Graeme Prentice" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>By not proprietary do you mean they will publish full specs
>for it, unlike dfm information

If it is using a standard format, they they wouldn't have to publish
anything themselves. Whoever wrote the standard would do that instead.
And .dfm is written in an ASCII format which is also standard and according
to your logic doesn't need documentation.
Quote

Why not? wxWindows is open-source, so anything they add to it to promote
RTTI is going to be open-source as well. As for the designers that
produce/process RTTI for the purposes of visual designing, I would imagine
that they will publish specs on how to make designers at some point, since
Really? They will publish the specs of their visual designer? Where does it
follow from? Why whould any sober-minded company give away their source of
income?
Quote
CBX is framework-agnostic so people will no doubt want to make their own
custom designers for their own frameworks, or to make custom replacements
for existing ones.
I like your "no doubt." I'd like to know where such strong convictions
coming from.
Any text editor is framework agnostic. Any takers to create a designer for
say vi? Ok, let's take the most sofisticated framework agnostic editor -
emacs. Have you seen anything decent created for 20+ years of its existance?
Certainly nothing that would be any close to RAD framework.
Quote

>the RAD designer is obviously going to be proprietary

No, it will not be. True, there will be default designers that Borland
itself provides, but people will be able to make their own designers as
well. The designer core itself doesn't even reside in the IDE at all, it
is
a separate webservice that the IDE spawns when needed and then
communication
back and forth is via SOAP. Neither the webservices architecture or the
SOAP protocol are proprietary, they are standardized (although Borland
would
have to make its own data values inside the SOAP packets). Each different
webservice handles different frameworks, and each webservice registers
itself with the IDE to tell it which frameworks/files can be handled. The
only proprietary parts will by the displayable portions of the designer
architecture, which will be embedded into the IDE interpretting the
webserver data and manipulating the IDE GUI appropriately.

This is a bombshell. So the new visual editor will be utilizing web services
for visual design? Any sources saying about that radical paradigm shift? And
can you, please, enlighten us how is that supposed to work?
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Quote
>Well, I just got my latest (and it looks like, last) printed copy of C++
>Builder Developer's Journal in the mail. Along with the November 2003
>issue is a note that says that the December issue will not be published,
>that the subscription will be extended by one month to make up for the
>December issue, and that all future issues will be online.

I heard about that a few months ago, even before the announcement of BCBX.
Strange, did they know something we didn't, even back then.
I first became aware of BCBX a few months ago, in a conversation with
Randall Nagy at Borland. I was aware at that time that it would be a
departure from BCB as we know it, but I didn't know of Borland's plans (or
lack of) regarding VCL compatibility. I was rather suprised to hear later
that they weren't including VCL support in the IDE. While it may seem a
coicidence, the arrival of BCBX is unrelated to the change of the Journal.
David Bridges, Editor
www.bridgespublishing.com
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

"Graeme Prentice" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
as far as I can tell, Borland don't have a legal or m{*word*203}obligation
to make everything they do for wx open source.
If it is implemented in wxWindows itself directly, then yes, it would have
to be.
Quote
Why do you use the plural "default designers".
Because wxWindows and VCL are completely different frameworks, different
ways of handling things. It would be very difficult to write a single
designer that worked with evereything across the board. If you refer back
to my explanation for the new designer architecture, then there would be a
wbservice dedicated to wxWindows and a webservice dedicated to VCL, each one
communicating information back and forth with the CBX IDE for displays
purposes. But the core logic would be in separate modules, thus my "plural"
reference.
Quote
Is there any timescale at all for when the next version of CBX
will be released?
No, but it should be within the next few months.
Gambit
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Exactly....I wasn't saying any differently. Don't try to make my point, as
though you're
the one making it. You're restating what I was already saying, just trying
to make it your own.
Quote
They have stated often enough that they primarily make development tools,
and that components should be left to third parties. They only provide
the infrastructure and basic stuff built on it.

And yes, I have seen Torry's and the DSP. But to use the VCL, one needed
a Delphi compiler (even BCB uses the Delphi compiler), and a compiler
that could handle the extensions.

So to whom should they have sold it, except to existing users of their
products?
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)

"C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot; C++ makes it harder, but
when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Marcelo R. Lopez, Jr. wrote:
Quote
Exactly....I wasn't saying any differently. Don't try to make my
point, as though you're the one making it. You're restating what I was
already saying, just trying to make it your own.
If that is what *you* were saying, you had lost me long before that.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting
than the question of whether a submarine can swim." -- Edsger Dijkstra
 

Re:Re: Another sign (as if we needed one)...

Dave Jewell wrote:
Quote
next few years while maintaining a single code base. It is just a
shame that this whole BCB thing has sent the wrong signals to
everybody.
I do agree that the reaction to lack of information about Borland's
plans for VCL support in C++BuilderX has been less than positive.
Hopefully Borland has learned that in the absence of information, its
customers will assume the worst, and keep our customers better informed
in the future.
--
John Kaster, Borland Developer Relations, bdn.borland.com
Don't miss the best BorCon ever! info.borland.com/conf2003/
Add a feature/Fix a bug: qc.borland.com
Get source: codecentral.borland.com