Board index » cppbuilder » Re: What is the real story on BCB?

2005-11-23 07:13:08 AM
cppbuilder26
"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
holding you personally responsible. <g>
 

"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
 

At 00:13:08, 23.11.2005, Duane Hebert wrote:
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and
principles, come and join this campaign." -- George W. Bush
 

{smallsort}

At 00:13:25, 23.11.2005, Thomas Maeder [TeamB] wrote:
with them. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour.
Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. THAT'S
relativity." -- Albert Einstein
 

"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
standardized C++. Delphi folks are more isolated in that way, and
need to stick together a little more, I think.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

At 00:26:40, 23.11.2005, Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
equivalent of Delphi.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"Don't let it end like this. Tell them I said something."
- last words of Pancho Villa (1877-1923)
 

Dennis Jones wrote:
non-visual RAD components that can be developed, whether in C++ Builder,
.NET, Java with Javabeans, or whatever environment supports RAD
programming. These non-visual components are not GUI components.
Secondly the VCL provides data modules for putting non-visual components
and for separating GUI from data. Other RAD environments may have a
similar concept. Thirdly the presence of RAD does not keep any
programmer from developing just normal C++ ( C#, Java ) classes for
manipulating data, and adding these to data modules or just using them
on thweir own.
Just because many programmers who do not think deeply about program
design freely mix/tie RAD forms with non-visual components and data does
not mean that RAD is bad in any way.
Borland's failure to attract C++ programmers has nothing to do with RAD.
Should one say that .NET is a programming failure because MS has
incorporated RAD in it ? Let's be real. Borland has largely failed to
attract more C++ programmers to C++ Builder because of their own failings.
 

"Edward Diener" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
but for visual components, the "two-way" mechanism that provides the
connection between code and design-time forms certainly "encourages" (note
that I never said, "enforces") a tightly-coupled design by making it all too
easy to insert business logic right there and then.
And while this might be more true for the less experienced, even experienced
developers will often do things the "easy way" just to get something done
quickly, many times telling themselves that they will go back and refactor
the code later, which of course (almost) never happens because the schedule
won't permit it, or they become critical path, or the boss says, "cool, ship
it!", or whatever.
On the other hand, as someone else pointed out earlier today, this same
"two-way" mechanism does provide the means for prototyping very quickly,
which of course was one of the major goals for RAD in the first place. So,
I suppose it's both a blessing and a curse.
- Dennis
 

Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] ha scritto:
 

At 08:37:19, 23.11.2005, Carmelo Viavattene wrote:
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
 

Rudy Velthuis wrote:
to go back and find the context of the text to which you
replied! <VBG>Perhaps I should be using XanaNews,
instead?!
May I suggest:

At 16:24:07, 24.11.2005, Fishface wrote:
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"We should leave our minds open, but not so open that our brains fall
out." -- Alan Ross Anderson