Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???


2003-12-03 02:04:12 AM
cppbuilder90
Quote
IMHO many years ago. Today I like the CBX idea, even if I haven't used
yet. Today Borland has lost its mind because of C# Builder. Who, today,
will adopt Borland C# Builder instead of MS?

I will. I've used the Visual Studio IDE for some time, and I still can't
stand it. It's like sticking my hand in peanut butter. At least C#B's IDE
is a little bit more intuitive to me.
Plus, as time goes by I expect I'll get access to a better extension of FCL
than the VS people get.
Although in a moment of total selfishness, I have to shake my head at why
the language of C# insists on a lowercase-uppercase-uppercase-lowercase
combo for a long comment. That's really irritating. Has nothing to do with
IDEs, but I had to get it out there.
[snip]
Quote
The problem with Borland is thay change strategy without care of their
customer. They continue to change "target customer", making the old ones
unhappy. Is this reasonable?
This assumes all the customers are or will be unhappy. Have you considered
that you might not represent everyone in your feelings here?
Quote
The OWL project is another example. Why they did not release it to the
open source community? Or why they did not sell it online for a small
fee? Today OWLNext can be used with BCB4, BCB5, BCB6, GCC, VC6, VC7
(including .NET) and Linux (via WINE). It seems that they are using wx
when they (many years ago) had OWL. But the sources cannot be
redistributed....
The question you pose about OWL has been answered exhaustively for years.
There are legal issues that prevent what you propose, which folks in Scotts
Valley are not at liberty, or have little desire any longer, to discuss.
Why they didn't sell it is because that would have cost more to produce (not
much R&D, but a lot of integration, installation, docs, QA, support) than
they would have made back.
Quote
>It would have made a lot more sense to build on BCB as a basis which
would
>have insured keeping the existing customer list intact. They certainly
>could have done so without giving up the ability to do every last thing
CBX
>does.
>
>A bad business decision, just plain stupid. Now, they end up losing the
>vast majority of existing BCB customers only to find a limited market
for
>the new product.

I think it is a good decision. BCB could not compete on the Windows
platform with VS.NET. Not anymore. How many new BCB users are there? Try
to count the post in the Borland C++ Builder ng and you'll see they are
less than a couple of years ago. They are losing market, and they know
that with VCL (a Delphi/C++ hybrid) they cannot recover the gap.

They did the mistake many years ago. I recall that in 1996, Borland C++
with design tools was more or less what CBX is now: portable C++
framework (OWL), possibility to use many compilers, Together C++
integration...
Very good point to make about how the old C++ system used to work - keep
that in mind. I suspect you'll probably see some similarities return in the
new product line.
T
 
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Thomas J. Theobald wrote:
Quote
I'm not with Borland any longer - haven't been for two years.
I didn't realize that.
Quote

And yes, Win32 is in the process of being buried. Right now. Yes,
there will be two or three years, probably more like ten, during
which Win32 development will continue at a slowly decelerating pace.
Your last two sentences contradict each other. If the process of being
buried will take ten years, the corpse is very much alive, and the VCL is
very much an environment which could be used to program for it. How really
hard would it have been to fix some of the major functionalities problems
with BCB ?
Quote
My point is that it probably doesn't add up, financially, to continue
production on a tool as complex as BCB with a user base/revenue
stream of this size.
This I can understand, in the sense that the user base of BCB is dwarfed by
that of VC++. Might I suggest that some of that is partially Borland's own
doing ? They have simply not supported the C++ programming language as they
should for many years, always content to graph on to it ideas that come from
OP and Delphi, some very good and some which are easily superceded by C++'s
richer functionality. I simply do not believe that Borland invested enough
in C++ expertise to adequately represent their BCB product on the market.
There were many plusses, for many years, which could have been cited and
developed in competition with VC++, but Borland has such fear of MS, and
such unwillingness to both recognize C++ as a great programming language and
find the expertise to support it, that their efforts were not greatly
productive.
Quote

My guess is that they didn't make the announcement prior to now simply
because they didn't make the decision up until very recently.
What is incredibly bad customer relations is that they are still almost
completely incapable of communicating their thinking and direction to
customers. How can they hope to keep existing customers, or win new ones,
based on this outdated, completely closed-mouth philosophy regarding nearly
everything they do ? One doesn't have to give the particulars of every new
direction in which they might be engaged in order to give their customers a
plan of their directions and future development. They really need some
decent customer relations people who are not completely strapped by
management's need for complete secrecy regarding technologies in which they
are interested.
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

"Graham Reeds" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Has anyone been invited to test the RAD interface?
Even if they had, they wouldn't be able to say either way. Testers are
under NDA, they are not allowed to answer such a question, or even
acknowledge that they are testers in the first place.
Quote
And will only those who have purchased Tomahawk
be able to use the RAD test?
Don't know. I doubt it, though. Have you tried sending an email to
Borland's beta account asking about it?
Gambit
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

"Thomas J. Theobald" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
My point is that it probably doesn't add up, financially, to continue
production on a tool as complex as BCB with a user base/revenue
stream of this size.
I'm not sure I buy this argument. I'd imagine that BCB has a user base
that's much smaller than Delphi -- the traffic in these newsgroups suggests
the same. Based on that, your argument makes sense. However, we both know
that much of the BCB IDE source code is shared with the Delphi IDE. So I
would not expect the effort required to fix BCB to be that huge.
It's a classic chicken and egg situation isn't it: "We ain't fixing it cos
the sales aren't there." But guess why the sales aren't there? Because
it's not been fixed..... Sigh.....
Dave
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Quote
>I'm not with Borland any longer - haven't been for two years.

I didn't realize that.
No wonder, - some folks just saw the writings on the wall sooner ;)
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Quote
I'm not sure I buy this argument. I'd imagine that BCB has a user base
that's much smaller than Delphi -- the traffic in these newsgroups
suggests
the same. Based on that, your argument makes sense. However, we both
know
that much of the BCB IDE source code is shared with the Delphi IDE. So I
would not expect the effort required to fix BCB to be that huge.
Yes, they are shared - but not if Delphi 8 goes to .NET. The Delphi/BCB IDE
is pure Win32 code - and eventually that is something that will probably
throw warning messages someday - "This is unmanaged code! Are you sure you
want to run it?" I'm betting that it'd be better overall for that one to be
retired in favor of a new environment - C#Builder has one that has a very
similar look and feel (when run in 'classic' mode) while still enabling lots
of new goods to be added in that the old one just couldn't do.
So they would land with a forked product line. Even if they still shared
the same IDE, that would mean they would have to maintain a compiler,
de{*word*81}, linker, and VCL as a different entity from Delphi - with the
integration, QA, R&D, docs, and so on to go with it. Prior iterations
worked out well because Delphi and BCB did have a very large shared
codebase. That won't be the case when one goes to .NET and one stays on
Win32.
My guess is that CBX is an attempt to do it from the ground up, and "do it
right" the C++ way. Very likely that product will find itself planted in a
good RAD environment with a lot more options that BCB never would have had.
I can't say that with any sort of veracity, but I'd be willing to bet on it.
T
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

"Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
"G.B.R." < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news:3fcc1e1a$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>You probably think that all the companies that go out of business
never did
>a market research. Whatever market research they did it won't help
them
>avert this impending fiasco. If anything, Borland should have asked
their
>BCB users before making that u-turn. If they did they would have heard
what
>has already been said on this forum, and if they were smart they would
have
>fixed the bugs in BCB6 instead of making another blunder.

You're contradicting yourself.
Sure, I do not.
Quote
First you claim (correctly, I think)
that Borland surely did market research, because all companies good and
Every big company has a marketing department, so I assume they did, whatever
it was.
Quote
bad do market research. Then you imply that they never spoke to their
users. Of course they did. That's market research. Maybe they just
I never implied "they never spoke" to ANY of their users. Simply speaking to
some users doesn't make a good marketing research. Whatever users they spoke
to and the manner they did it, couldn't deny the fact that this forum
reflects that the choice they made shocked very very many. Had they asked
this forum before making that u-turn, they would have been seen exactly the
same reaction as it is now. Whether their market research was lousy or there
were other reasons for that decision, I don't know.
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

"Thomas J. Theobald" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Okay, let's look at it from a long-term perspective.

Win32 is being buried. Literally. Under the CLR. Even VC++ Users can
see
the writing on the wall, and using packaged COM/COM+ objects will only go
so
far. BCB would face the same issue.
Whether Win32 will be implemented under CLR or v.v. or they will have common
base is not that important. Firstly, most of Win32 API will be supported for
many years to come, so for that rare occasions when you have direct API
calls you'll probably be ok. Secondly, if they wanted to change
implementation of VCL in terms of CLR is fine for everybody as long as they
don't change interfaces and don't expose any managed extensions to the user.
I don't even care if they implemented VCL in terms of wxWindows (which, of
course, is using the same Win32 API calls, and that didn't stop Borland).
Just hide the abomination from the users.
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Quote
>And yes, Win32 is in the process of being buried. Right now. Yes,
>there will be two or three years, probably more like ten, during
>which Win32 development will continue at a slowly decelerating pace.

Your last two sentences contradict each other. If the process of being
buried will take ten years, the corpse is very much alive, and the VCL is
very much an environment which could be used to program for it. How really
hard would it have been to fix some of the major functionalities problems
with BCB ?

I don't see it as a contradiction - just as 16-bit Windows can still be
found here and there, ten years from now you'll still see NT and 2k boxes.
Development for these platforms will die away, quickly at first, then more
slowly as the aged hardware/software is replaced or simply collapses.
How hard it would be isn't a question I can answer accurately. From the
decisions made, though, it would seem that Borland folks thought it would be
pretty hard, and would end up costing them more than they could afford.
Quote
>My point is that it probably doesn't add up, financially, to continue
>production on a tool as complex as BCB with a user base/revenue
>stream of this size.

This I can understand, in the sense that the user base of BCB is dwarfed
by
that of VC++. Might I suggest that some of that is partially Borland's own
doing ? They have simply not supported the C++ programming language as
they
should for many years, always content to graph on to it ideas that come
from
OP and Delphi, some very good and some which are easily superceded by
C++'s
richer functionality. I simply do not believe that Borland invested enough
in C++ expertise to adequately represent their BCB product on the market.
There were many plusses, for many years, which could have been cited and
developed in competition with VC++, but Borland has such fear of MS, and
such unwillingness to both recognize C++ as a great programming language
and
find the expertise to support it, that their efforts were not greatly
productive.
Well, "should have" is a pretty subjective term - I think it is widely
recognized, even within Borland, that you could say C++ v4 (not BCB, but the
C++ product before it) was the beginning of a pretty steep downhill slope.
BCB recovered a portion of it, but VC++ had already taken up a lot of the
slack.
I don't think it was a question of a lack of expertise - working with Delphi
was just easier. I'm sure that if you took a sampling of R&D staffers there
that you'd find a great deal of C++ expertise still walks the halls. My
guess - and that's really all it is, just a guess - is that they recognized
that BCB was a dying animal, as its Win32 environment was pretty much
doomed. From the look of it, though, CBX could be seen as a statement that
they do see a viable C++ market, and they are addressing it in the way they
feel best fits it. VC++ is also going to suffer - you can bet it will
address .NET only from here on out. That means there is an opportunity for
a C++ product that can address .NET as well as other platforms. If I'm not
mistaken, this C#Builder IDE can handle multiple different compilers,
editors, etc. etc. ...
Quote
>My guess is that they didn't make the announcement prior to now simply
>because they didn't make the decision up until very recently.

What is incredibly bad customer relations is that they are still almost
completely incapable of communicating their thinking and direction to
customers. How can they hope to keep existing customers, or win new ones,
based on this outdated, completely closed-mouth philosophy regarding
nearly
everything they do ? One doesn't have to give the particulars of every new
direction in which they might be engaged in order to give their customers
a
plan of their directions and future development. They really need some
decent customer relations people who are not completely strapped by
management's need for complete secrecy regarding technologies in which
they
are interested.
What would they have done? Would the reaction to a statement of "We're
thinking about stopping support of BCB" have been all that different to the
statement that the decision had been made? I think that would have just
made the pain last longer. If I have to get something cut off, I'd rather
have someone use an axe than a spoon, I guess. I just have to disagree here
on the philosophical grounds you pose, the idea of keeping quiet on many
issues is really the smart one - because to me it's better to tell someone a
definite, than a possible which may end up not coming true.
They often give tech sneak-peeks at BorCon to give folks an idea of their
tech directions - they also send DevRel folks on tour to talk about just
that. I think there's one of those tours in progress right now. Articles
in SDTimes also indicate their intentions. I'm just not clear on what you'd
be looking for - internal decisions are just that, internal. Once they're
made, if they are relevant to the public, they get made public. They just
don't come straight out of a meeting and post the minutes to the newsgroups.
I guess I don't know what you're asking for here in this paragraph.
[voice=B. Clinton] I feel your pain [/voice], but I don't think the
situation is as grim or dark as it might look.
T
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Thomas J. Theobald wrote:
Quote
>>And yes, Win32 is in the process of being buried. Right now. Yes,
>>there will be two or three years, probably more like ten, during
>>which Win32 development will continue at a slowly decelerating pace.
>
>Your last two sentences contradict each other. If the process of
>being buried will take ten years, the corpse is very much alive, and
>the VCL is very much an environment which could be used to program
>for it. How really hard would it have been to fix some of the major
>functionalities problems with BCB ?
>

I don't see it as a contradiction - just as 16-bit Windows can still
be found here and there, ten years from now you'll still see NT and
2k boxes. Development for these platforms will die away, quickly at
first, then more slowly as the aged hardware/software is replaced or
simply collapses.
Everything will die away, but so what. That's not an excuse for not
implementing and supporting a product as it should be done. Excuses to the
contrary, Borland has simply not done a really good job with BCB and this
lack of effort is the primary reason why customers may no longer be
interested in buying Borland products. Presenting a new product to
customers, and specifying a change in direction and focus in C++
development, is not where the disappointment lies for BCB developers. Most
Windows C++ programmers would agree that focus on .NET will eventually mean
less of a market for Win32 development. But that is not a reason for
quitting or for displaying the almost complete lack of concern which Borland
has had over customer problems dealing with Borland's own bugs for many
years. Borland's attitude has clearly been that they care very little about
their C++ customers. Why should they think that that attitude will
ingratiate themselves enough with current customers to continue using
Borland's C++ technologies ?
Quote

How hard it would be isn't a question I can answer accurately. From
the decisions made, though, it would seem that Borland folks thought
it would be pretty hard, and would end up costing them more than they
could afford.
I am not buying this. Some of the bugs are so ridiculous and obvious that if
it took a single programmer more than half a day to fix any one of the major
bugs, I would be greatly surprised and would assume that the quality of
programming expertise is very low. Some of those fixes would greatly ease
the development burden of thousands of customers.
Quote

>>My point is that it probably doesn't add up, financially, to
>>continue production on a tool as complex as BCB with a user
>>base/revenue stream of this size.
>
>This I can understand, in the sense that the user base of BCB is
>dwarfed by that of VC++. Might I suggest that some of that is
>partially Borland's own doing ? They have simply not supported the
>C++ programming language as they should for many years, always
>content to graph on to it ideas that come from OP and Delphi, some
>very good and some which are easily superceded by C++'s richer
>functionality. I simply do not believe that Borland invested enough
>in C++ expertise to adequately represent their BCB product on the
>market. There were many plusses, for many years, which could have
>been cited and developed in competition with VC++, but Borland has
>such fear of MS, and such unwillingness to both recognize C++ as a
>great programming language and find the expertise to support it,
>that their efforts were not greatly productive.

Well, "should have" is a pretty subjective term - I think it is widely
recognized, even within Borland, that you could say C++ v4 (not BCB,
but the C++ product before it) was the beginning of a pretty steep
downhill slope. BCB recovered a portion of it, but VC++ had already
taken up a lot of the slack.
If you admit that it was a pretty steep downhill slope, then I believe you
are agreeing with me about Borland's lack of C++ expertise.
Quote

I don't think it was a question of a lack of expertise - working with
Delphi was just easier.
It's irrelevant. So working with Delphi is easier for Borland programmers.
That doesn't make programming C++ hard, it just means that it is more
complicated in many respects. But with that complication comes greater
programming flexibility and usability. Why Borland has never caught on to
the greater expressive power of C++ is beyond me. All their programmers
can't be that dumb to believe that a simpler language is a good substitute
for a more complicated, but far more expressive language, in most
situations. If they do believe that, they should simply drop C++ and move on
to things which they can understand.
Quote
I'm sure that if you took a sampling of R&D
staffers there that you'd find a great deal of C++ expertise still
walks the halls.
I don't know who walks the halls at Borland but I have seen very little C++
expertise displayed on these NGs from Borland employees. Both the level, and
interest, is very low.
Quote
My guess - and that's really all it is, just a
guess - is that they recognized that BCB was a dying animal, as its
Win32 environment was pretty much doomed.
That is not an excuse for years of neglect, easily predating .NET.
Quote
From the look of it,
though, CBX could be seen as a statement that they do see a viable
C++ market, and they are addressing it in the way they feel best fits
it. VC++ is also going to suffer - you can bet it will address .NET
only from here on out.
Since MS has already emphatically stated that VC++ would continue to address
the Ansi C++ standard, and continue to be used for non-.NET technologies,
your bet is a real loser.
Quote
That means there is an opportunity for a C++
product that can address .NET as well as other platforms.
I agree, and I look forward to it. But the current incarnation of wxWindows
is so obviously a giant step backward from the progressive ideas of the VCL
that choosing to program with it is like returning to an era of C++
programming of years ago. I am sure even the wxWindows developers know that.
But this decision to pursue other platforms should not mean that all Win32
BCB programming development at Borland must stop. How convenient for Borland
to decide that it should <g>.
Quote
If I'm not
mistaken, this C#Builder IDE can handle multiple different compilers,
editors, etc. etc. ...
I think you mean CBX here.
Quote

>>My guess is that they didn't make the announcement prior to now
>>simply because they didn't make the decision up until very recently.
>
>What is incredibly bad customer relations is that they are still
>almost completely incapable of communicating their thinking and
>direction to customers. How can they hope to keep existing
>customers, or win new ones, based on this outdated, completely
>closed-mouth philosophy regarding nearly everything they do ? One
>doesn't have to give the particulars of every new direction in which
>they might be engaged in order to give their customers a plan of
>their directions and future development. They really need some
>decent customer relations people who are not completely strapped by
>management's need for complete secrecy regarding technologies in
>which they are interested.

What would they have done? Would the reaction to a statement of
"We're thinking about stopping support of BCB" have been all that
different to the statement that the decision had been made?
The reaction would have certainly been different if Borland had clearly and
effectively announced their future plans for C++ development, VCL support,
Win32 support, and CBX features and development from the very beginning.
Months have gone by and they still can not make clear statements or issue
announcements which tell what they are doing, where they are going, and what
they are going to support. Such incredible mismanagement regarding C++ is
beyond being laughable; it borders on the ridiculous and absurd.
Quote
I think
that would have just made the pain last longer. If I have to get
something cut off, I'd rather have someone use an axe than a spoon, I
guess. I just have to disagree here on the philosophical grounds you
pose, the idea of keeping quiet on many issues is really the smart
one - because to me it's better to tell someone a definite, than a
possible which may end up not coming true.
You are contradicting yourself again. First you want definitive statements
and then you try to defend keeping quiet and not saying anything. I want
definitive statements, period, as well as an end to all this nonsensical,
secretive game-playing. Who can it possibly benefit ? Certainly not Borland,
and certainly not me.
Quote

They often give tech sneak-peeks at BorCon to give folks an idea of
their tech directions - they also send DevRel folks on tour to talk
about just that. I think there's one of those tours in progress
right now.
This is clubby stuff, propaganda rather than information. Sure MS does it
all the time also. Developers should not be treated with such manipulation.
If Borland would stop treating their BCB developers as such nincompoops, and
start treating them with respect rather than disdain, maybe they could
better run their company with regard to their C++ future.
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

If the sales of BCB have been shrinking (and how can we really know?) then perhaps it
is because Borland has been putting out versions that actually regress and introduce
new bugs while not fixing old ones of long duration.
It matters a great deal why the sales of a product shrinks. I think in the case of
BCB one major reason is that they've done a poor job on quality. Now they have BCBX
out. Will it be any better? Well, there's an old saying "Fool me once...".
Thomas J. Theobald wrote:
Quote
Delphi is moving to .NET, and VCL is being moved to be an extension of the
FCL. That means that in the case of BCB, you're looking at a frozen class
library, or a very large additional expense to continue development of it.
Every release of BCB costs XYZ dollars, and the customer base for that
product, let's face it, has been shrinking. I'm not saying why or why not,
it just is. Retooling the C++ compiler to work within .NET would be
impossible if you wanted to still call it C++. So you're looking at forking
the product line, effectively doubling your effort, for a return which would
be probably less than 20% of the original revenue of the two.

 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Yes, the lack of a second letter in combination with comments reported from BorCon
make it clear that Borland never committed internally to Win32 VCL support in BCBX
and still may not have made that commitment.
The best the existing Win32 BCB programmers are getting offered is a migration to VCL
.NET. Well, I'm so not ready to migrate to .NET it is not even funny. I have no
business need to do so and do not expect such a business need to arise any time in
the next 2 or 3 years. Meanwhile, I've been ready for many months to buy another
version of BCB that fixes bugs and that offers some improvements. Heck, I'd buy
another BCB just to get bug fixes if they fixed enough of them.
David Erbas-White wrote:
Quote
I truly do not understand how Borland attempts to gain from this fiasco.
As for the promised customer support, bear in mind that it is now
December, and Borland has yet to fulfill the promise of telling their
existing BCB customers what their purported migration path is. You can
draw many conclusions from this, but the top one in my mind is that they
HAD no plan in place, and are trying to frantically come up with one.
I can't realistically see other reasons for this delay -- it's one
quarter of a product-cycle to simply tell people what their plan
supposedly WAS.

David Erbas-White

 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

Dave Jewell wrote:
Quote
Yup - that's for sure. Given that Long-Haul (err....sorry, Longhorn <g>)
has now been put back to end of 2006, beginning of 2007, (at the *earliest*)
it should be pretty damn obvious that smart developers are going to hedge
their bets and not abandon Win32 prematurely. I see another two, maybe
three years of profitable Win32 development. If Borland aren't there making
a profit, that's their funeral. :-(
I look at what I'm doing now and how my customers like the new versions and see that
time spent porting to .NET really doens't do anything beneficial for the customers.
But .NET it will probably make the programs slower and running in a bigger virtual
extent. So I don't see any advantage in porting to .NET.
Some day it might become a good idea. The major reason it will become a good idea
will be that .NET will have to become just a way better dev environment to make it
worth taking the time to port to it. But I don't see a business case to make for
myself to take the time or another guy I work with to take the time. Plus, there are
class libs we are using from 3rd parties that haven't been ported to .NET yet.
Win32 works. The migration from DOS to Windows was more compelling because of the
step up to GUI interfaces. The step from Win16 to Win32 was compelling because we
were all straining against the size of the address space and the 16 bit pointers.
But today I'm not straining against the size of the 32 bit address space and don't
expect to be in the next few years. I'm also not straining against limitations on the
richness of the GUI API set. Its like Win32 is good enough and there is just not the
rush to move from it that to a newer API set that there was for previous API migrations.
This is part of a larger pattern. How many people need a faster CPU or the latest
version of Word? Neither of those upgrades are as compelling as new CPU versions and
new desktop software versions were 10 years ago.
What I want is about a thousand little and not-so-little bugs fixed and the product
refined in little ways. I want the kind of attitude applied to development tools that
the Japanese bring to car design and manufacturing. I want an incredibly high quality
low bug BCB. Borland doesn't hear this. They are thinking grand strategies. They
ought to be thinking continuous improvement.
 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

I think the fears of what MS will do with the Win32 API in the future are getting
absurd. No, MS is not going to start popping up dialog boxes when a user starts an
old program.
Forked product line: Delphi 7 is out and BCB 7 is not. So the problem with product
line forking was not the reason to stop BCB at v6.
CBX is not a new work from the ground up. It is built on the Java IDE which is used
for making JBuilder. Borland switched from using an OP/VCL Delphi IDE base for C++ to
using a JBuilder Java IDE base.
Did it make sense to make that switch to a portable IDE? It is if cross-platform is
important for the hosting machine. After all, they could have targetted PDAs from a
Windows-based forms designer and compiler tools that run on Windows. But maybe with
the code done for JBuilder it was easier to use that as a starting point. It is not
clear to me whether that is the case.
But Borland's mistake with this strategy was to precede that switch of IDE with a few
years of regression bugs in a couple of major releases of BCB followed by a refusal
to fix them followed by a multi-year gap between major C++ product releases. Borland
has alienated a lot of old customers. People are mad. People are less trusting.
Thomas J. Theobald wrote:
Quote
Yes, they are shared - but not if Delphi 8 goes to .NET. The Delphi/BCB IDE
is pure Win32 code - and eventually that is something that will probably
throw warning messages someday - "This is unmanaged code! Are you sure you
want to run it?" I'm betting that it'd be better overall for that one to be
retired in favor of a new environment - C#Builder has one that has a very
similar look and feel (when run in 'classic' mode) while still enabling lots
of new goods to be added in that the old one just couldn't do.

So they would land with a forked product line. Even if they still shared
the same IDE, that would mean they would have to maintain a compiler,
de{*word*81}, linker, and VCL as a different entity from Delphi - with the
integration, QA, R&D, docs, and so on to go with it. Prior iterations
worked out well because Delphi and BCB did have a very large shared
codebase. That won't be the case when one goes to .NET and one stays on
Win32.

My guess is that CBX is an attempt to do it from the ground up, and "do it
right" the C++ way. Very likely that product will find itself planted in a
good RAD environment with a lot more options that BCB never would have had.
I can't say that with any sort of veracity, but I'd be willing to bet on it.

T


 

Re:Re: Has Borland Lost its Mind???

"Dave Jewell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
It's not a rumour. It's official. Try this:
Thanks, Dave -
Like everybody else, I'm attempting to plan my future in the middle of all
this fast moving chaos - probably a rather silly exercise, but I have to try
:-)
- Richard