Board index » cppbuilder » Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense


2004-10-19 08:13:59 AM
cppbuilder106
Rudy,
I'm in the "This is a waste of time" camp. Make a business case to Borland? Oh, get
off it. What is in the open letter that is some novel idea that their managers
haven't heard of before?
How can we make a business case without their internal sales and customer survey
data? Be real.
At this point with this many years of suggestions sent in via email, rants here that
some Borland employees read, BorCon meetings with users, and other contacts they
either get it or they don't.
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
Being representative is not so important. Making a good business case
is important. And I doubt Borland management reads this group, so the
open community letter as it is being done is possibly the only way to
reach these people.

homepages.borland.com/dthorpe/blog/delphi/2004_04_01_archive.php#
108175802940991038

or tinyurl.com/22hzc

"How to Persuade Borland to Do Anything"
 
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Randall Parker wrote:
Quote
I'm in the "This is a waste of time" camp.
Then don't sign it. <g>
I commend those who at least try to do something about the situation.
Even if they fail, they have at least tried.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
"God gave men both a {*word*205} and a brain, but unfortunately not enough
{*word*76}
supply to run both at the same time."
-- Robin Williams, commenting on the Clinton/Lewinsky affair
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
You mean BCB developers, right? I guess that actually delivering a
product that works in the BSD IDE would alter that perception a great
deal.
It would certainly help as far as I'm concerned.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

"Dennis Jones" wrote in message...
Quote

IOW, it's a waste of time.

If Borland plans to "never abandon the developer", wouldn't you want to find
out if it's true now than find out if it's not later? In other words, it
could be a more of waste of time not to call the bluff -- that is if it is
one.
Incidently, the time it takes to sign the letter, which you called a waste
of time, takes less time than posting to this newsgroup.
Quote
It's no different than the complaints that have been leveled at Borland
for
the last two years from people in these newsgroups. Team B consistently
reminds us that we (frequenters of these newsgroups) are not
representative
of Borland's userbase. And yet, who is writing the open letter to
Borland?
All input collectected has not necessarily resulted form newsgroup chatter
as a means for its evolution. I have made every attempt not to
discriminate, other than it has to be relative to "representative users" and
in english. :-)
Quote
Come on now, how dumb is that? Borland already knows what we want (they
just choose to ignore it) and an open letter from 75 unrepresentative
users
isn't going to affect their plans in the least. It's a waste of time.
They can't ignore this - otherwise every other user of Borland's product
should be concerned. With that said, however, I can be hopeful until I have
reason not to be.
Here's the link for those that feel like they qualify as a representative
user (either past, present, or future?).
www.simventions.com/gustavson/2004/10/lettersign/regaddform.htm
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

"Israel Raj T" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
>IOW, it's a waste of time.
True.
However it is cathartic.

Think of it as therapy for the 75 who sign it.
Fortunately we're bit further along than that -- we're at 320+. More are
needed though.
Keep 'em coming!!!
www.simventions.com/gustavson/2004/10/lettersign/regaddform.htm
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Quote

If t hey are too lazy, incompetent, or disinterested to pursue business
opportunites,{*word*222}em.

YES, absolutely !
I do not wait anymore some blah-blah
called "announce", "openletter", "future visions"
or whatever.
(which cost nothing, thats the reason
companies make them)
Stephane
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

In another thread, someone (who knows these things) was saying that there are
necessary design changes required to get BCB VCL working inside Db. Some of
these impinge on the code itself, so if you have done things like subclassing
stuff, or hooking interrupts real-time, then you'll have a harder time porting
your BCB VCL code to BCB VCL under Db. That is my point. I don't mind small
changes, but the entire application code suite will be full of "passing
pointers by reference" and casts to void *, neither of which are very well
supported under Db, because of its commitments to the foibles of .NET, even
despite it saying that it supports the VCL. The other concern is for all the
useful 3rd party VCL components that are no longer supported (eg. Turbopower
no longer exists), but are still used and useful under BCB 3/5/6, because
these will need slight rewrites, yet there will be no-one around to do these
small rewrites. That is why I am stressing that Diamondback needs to be as
compatible as possible with the old VCL.
However, I'll take all this back if I can easily import old BCB projects into
Diamondback, and have them up and running at the same speed as before, within
half a day a piece. I have seen the code folding stuff, and, frequently, this
is something I currently do manually - this is a really useful feature. I am
just absolutely paranoid about the compatibility or project import
capabilities of Diamondback, as regards BCB v5 Pro SP1, that's all.
--
Mark Jacobs
DK Computing
www.dkcomputing.co.uk
"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
| Why not? Anyway, Diamondback should be backward compatible, not the
| other way around.
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote
so if you have done things like subclassing
stuff, or hooking interrupts real-time, then you'll have a harder
time porting your BCB VCL code to BCB VCL under Db.
I don't know that many people will have done either of those.
I don't really understand where you're coming from with this complaint.
I don't see any reason to think that the migration path to the next
version of BCB will be any more complicated for developers than the
upgrade has ever been. Prior upgrades have required a few minutes
(perhaps a couple of hours) of tweaks and minor changes and that's it.
Why do you think this should be different for the next version of BCB?
Quote
However, I'll take all this back if I can easily import old BCB
projects into Diamondback
Huh? So if I understand the above comment correctly you're attacking a
product that doesn't yet exist based on your own personal speculation
without even having tried the current version of the product you are
attacking?
I think you need to take a step back and just go into wait and see
mode. ISTM that at present you are getting yourself worked up about
something that doesn't even exist based upon little or no information.
--
Andrue Cope [TeamB]
[Bicester, Uk]
info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

"Mark Jacobs" <www.jacobsm.com/mjmsg?Borland%20Newsgroup>wrote in
message news:4174cf24$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
In another thread, someone (who knows these things) was saying that there
are
necessary design changes required to get BCB VCL working inside Db.
I missed that, and I can't find anything relevant via google - Do you have a
link?
Quote
The other concern is for all the
useful 3rd party VCL components that are no longer supported (eg.
Turbopower
no longer exists), but are still used and useful under BCB 3/5/6, because
these will need slight rewrites, yet there will be no-one around to do
these
small rewrites.
That *is* a real concern, but bear in mind that 3rd party components are
almost all in Delphi rather than C++.
I believe it's vital that Delphi-written components can be used DIRECTLY
within BCB, rather than (as happens now) component vendors having to build
specific BCB versions of many things.
I'm sure that most serious 3rd party vendors are going to commit to
Diamondback Delphi support, so the upgrade path could be fairly painless.
While backwards compatibility for components would be nice, I'd prefer to
see Delphi and the VCL move on, and component vendors follow. (like a
Unicode VCL...)
As for the 'unsupported' components, make sure you've got source code
licenses for them. Even if they're unsupported, you might be able to acquire
that.
- Roddy
I agree that's always a concern when upgrading, and it's one of the things
to consider when selecting 3rd party components.
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Quote
Fortunately we're bit further along than that -- we're at 320+. More are
needed though.
Make it 321+ now. :)
Best regards
Alex Bosetti
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Quote
>IOW, it is a petition.

IOW, it's a waste of time.
It may indeed prove to be a waste of time. If Borland chooses to ignore
it, it will certainly have been a waste of time. However, I think the
average petitioner is in a state of desperation, and is willing to
invest time in making their case heard even if there is a chance that no
one will care or listen.
Quote
It's no different than the complaints that have been leveled at Borland for
the last two years from people in these newsgroups. Team B consistently
reminds us that we (frequenters of these newsgroups) are not representative
of Borland's userbase.
Yes, that is Borland's belief: that the newsgroup community is not an
accurate statistical representation of the typical borland customer. I
don't necessarily agree with it, but that's just me.
Quote
And yet, who is writing the open letter to Borland?
You have a good point. If Borland does choose to ignore the open letter,
they may claim it was because the open letter doesn't reflect the views
of the development community as a whole. It is a very convenient excuse
for discarding the open letter without considering it. I think the
typical open letter contributor is willing to take this risk.
H^2
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

"Harold Howe [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Yes, that is Borland's belief: that the newsgroup community is not
an accurate statistical representation of the typical borland
customer. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's just me.
I saw point made in the Delphi non-tech noisegroup, something to the
effect that a hobbiest game programmer is more representive of a
professional game programmer that is a database expert.
IMHO, the hobbiest voice should not quickly be discounted, and I've
always believed that. Not that newsgroups == hobbiest, but the voices
of those who do not directly represent major cashflow are still
represent the voice of programmers who care about their products, and
that is universal, regardless of the size of our budgets.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote
In another thread, someone (who knows these things) was saying that
there are necessary design changes required to get BCB VCL working
inside Db.
Who was that? The VCL is the VCL. It should work with the current,
existing VCL for Db, since that also works with Delphi (I hope).
There may be necessary changes to the IDE to learn about handling C++,
but they already have the technology from BCB.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
"I don't even butter my bread; I consider that cooking."
- Katherine Cebrian
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
I saw point made in the Delphi non-tech noisegroup, something to the
effect that a hobbiest game programmer is more representive of a
professional game programmer that is a database expert.
Oops, a single character type-o that completely changes the meaning
of what I was trying to say:
"... a hobbiest game programmer is more representive of a
professional game programmer THAN is a database expert."
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Re:Re: Community Open Letter Nonsense

Mark Jacobs wrote:
Quote

In another thread, someone (who knows these things) was saying that there are
necessary design changes required to get BCB VCL working inside Db.
Since I write more than 25 of the components on the pallet (IBX) I can tell you
that there was absolutely no changes I had to make from the Win32 version (run
time or design time) to get them to work in Diamondback. Who ever told you this
did not know what they were talking about, contrary to your statement.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB)
(Please do not email me directly unless asked. Thank You)
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher
a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build
a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act
alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer,
cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for
insects. (RAH)