Board index » cppbuilder » Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007


2007-02-09 09:07:21 AM
cppbuilder80
In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Leo Siefert < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
I hope you are also very eager to post them. <g>
I *would* like to, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going to happen. We
didn't publish the Delphi survey results.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

Quote
You left out 64-bit (path, not immediate implementation -- i.e., put it
on the roadmap). Also Unicode...

64 bit is on my radar but no that important. The unicode would be
required to port to wince as the api is only unicode
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

David Dean wrote:
Quote
I *would* like to, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going
to happen. We didn't publish the Delphi survey results.
Just trying to give a little nudge now that you guys have a bit more
freedom to make your own choices. Really hard to see how publishing
results could hurt the org in any way - I'd be very surprised to hear
that the evil empire changed any of their plans due to your survey
(especially the Delphi one <g>).
- Leo
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

Quote
I hope you are also very eager to post them. <g>

There's no reason that I can see that would make it in their best interest
to release the results of the survey. What they should do though IMO is
release the survey itself to the community for comment to get the bugs out
of it prior to actually performing it.
Db
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

"David Erbas-White" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
David,
Thanks for saying what I've always thought about these surveys!
Quote
4.10

About dynamic libraries -- they made sense for MFC products, but Borland
products are so rarely used among end-users, that the additional overhead
of shipping the libraries (and the problems that were inherent in using
some of them) made the whole concept 'impractical'.
How about an "I don't know what this is" option?
Quote

4.12

You point me to a roadmap, and ask about whether unicode support is in the
right place. The funny thing is, I don't even see Unicode support on the
roadmap... Oh well...
Or, you are taken to a page that says:
An error occurred in the application:
The exception type is:
SqlException
The message that came along with the exception is:
Transaction (Process ID 78) was deadlocked on lock resources with another
process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction.
Stack Trace:
at System.Data.SqlClient.SqlCommand.ExecuteNonQuery()
at borland.bdn.services.TDbAccess.ExecuteNonQuery(@MetaTDbAccess Self,
SqlConnection AConnection, String AQuery)
at borland.bdn.services.TArticleService.Hit(Int64 ArticleId, Int64
ArticleVersionId, String FileName, Int64 UserId, String IpAddress, Int32
SiteID)
at article.TArticleForm.TArticleForm_PreProcessTags(Object sender, EventArgs
e)
at Borland.BDN.Web.TemplatePage.OnPreProcessTags(EventArgs e)
at Borland.BDN.Web.TemplatePage.OnInit(EventArgs e)
at BdnPage.TBdnPage.OnInit(EventArgs e)
at article.TArticleForm.OnInit(EventArgs e)
at System.Web.UI.Control.InitRecursive(Control namingContainer)
at System.Web.UI.Page.ProcessRequestMain()
You were attempting to access this link:
/article/33519
Quote
5.1

You ask about doing stuff like device drivers -- it kind of infers that
one could do that in Builder -- I really wish it would...
They ask about this in every survey.
Quote
12.6

You have a misspelling in the fifth item (frequent, not frequest).
And in 11.1 -- "How much to you..." Should be "How much *do* you..."
- Dennis
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

Great idea. Some/Many of the results in the survey could be shared w
everyone. I'll look at doing this after we close the C++ survey. -m
Quote
>I *would* like to, but I'm pretty sure that isn't going
>to happen. We didn't publish the Delphi survey results.

Just trying to give a little nudge now that you guys have a bit more
freedom to make your own choices. Really hard to see how publishing
results could hurt the org in any way - I'd be very surprised to hear
that the evil empire changed any of their plans due to your survey
(especially the Delphi one <g>).
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

In article < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
Leo Siefert < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Really hard to see how publishing
results could hurt the org in any way - I'd be very surprised to hear
that the evil empire changed any of their plans due to your survey
I don't know why TPTB are so tight fisted on this. (Maybe it's
because I'm a coder and not a businessman) I'm hoping that there are
things to come which will stabilize revenue in a way that we can be more
open about such things without the fear of Osborne or other boogeymen.
Fear and uncertainty hurts our business too, but it's harder to
demonstrate that.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

In article <45ccbd2d$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,
"Michael Swindell \(CodeGear\)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote:
Quote
Great idea. Some/Many of the results in the survey could be shared w
everyone. I'll look at doing this after we close the C++ survey. -m
:::Tenting fingers::: Excellent. I like it when I'm proven wrong in
cases like this.
--
-David Dean
CodeGear C++ QA Engineer
<blogs.codegear.com/ddean/>
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

Michael Swindell wrote:
Quote
Great idea. Some/Many of the results in the survey could be shared w
everyone. I'll look at doing this after we close the C++ survey. -m
Great! I think more openness like this will serve to increase user
participation as well.
- Leo
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

Quote
My only comment, in the section "how much do you use the following IDE
features". I would like to have said how much I *wanted* to use them,
vs. how much I was able to. EG, the "Structure pain" is useless for
C++ in BDS2006.

And, another useful question would be about what 3rd party IDE plugins
you rely on. I couldn't live without gexperts, bcc32pch and
delphispeedup.

But, the more of these I use, the flakier the IDE seems to get :(
Two very good points. There were some IDE features I would like to use
that I have to keep turned off to prevent crashes and/or pitiful
performance. The Insight stuff comes to mind immediately...
I'd add to your 3rd party IDE list CnWizards, and I'd recommend that
everyone who hasn't see it take a look (BTW, I'm using the nightly
build CnWizards and they don't seem to destabalize the IDE any more
than the release build).
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

"Leroy Casterline" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I'd add to your 3rd party IDE list CnWizards, and I'd recommend that
everyone who hasn't see it take a look (BTW, I'm using the nightly
build CnWizards and they don't seem to destabalize the IDE any more
than the release build).
After seeing your post, I decided to take a look at CnWizards. The *very
first* thing I tried to do (MessageBox) not only didn't paste code into the
editor correctly, it also crashed the IDE (BDS) when I tried to undo the
code it had just entered. The next thing I tried was the source code
statistics wizard. First it tried to find a non-existent DPK file (I'm in a
BCB project, for heaven's sake!!). Then, as it was processing files, it
simply vanished -- no warnings, no errors, nothing (twice -- the third time,
I actually got some [relatively useless] data). So much for quality.
Secondarily, there are no truly useful wizards in it. Most of them are
fluff, and many of them do so little that it's more work to access the
wizard than it is to do by hand whatever the wizard would have done. I'm
sorry Leroy, but I don't see the appeal -- they just don't provide any
significant added value that I can see. Just another waste of time and
effort (of 200 developers?), if you asked me.
- Dennis
 

Re:Re: The C++Builder Developer Survey 2007

Hi Dennis,
I'm sorry you had such a horrid experience with CnWizards.
All I can say is that I've had a good experience. I expecially love
the toolbars that surround forms when you select them. I'd hate to
have to design without them.
On thing that I will acknowledge is that I put up with crashes to gain
the advantage of CnWizards and GExperts. I wish I didn't have to, but
I'm willing to save often and reboot as necessary to gain the
advantage of these fine tools. They both exacerbate the IDE's tendency
to crash, and there is no doubt about that. I don't know if this is
CG's problem or that of CnWizards or GExperts. I'd guess the problems
probably rest in both courts to some degree.
<Ann Landers Hat>But it is what it is, and only you can decide if
you're better off with or without these 3rd party tools. </Ann Landers
Hat>
-Leroy
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:51:43 -0800, "Dennis Jones" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >
wrote:
Quote

"Leroy Casterline" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>I'd add to your 3rd party IDE list CnWizards, and I'd recommend that
>everyone who hasn't see it take a look (BTW, I'm using the nightly
>build CnWizards and they don't seem to destabalize the IDE any more
>than the release build).

After seeing your post, I decided to take a look at CnWizards. The *very
first* thing I tried to do (MessageBox) not only didn't paste code into the
editor correctly, it also crashed the IDE (BDS) when I tried to undo the
code it had just entered. The next thing I tried was the source code
statistics wizard. First it tried to find a non-existent DPK file (I'm in a
BCB project, for heaven's sake!!). Then, as it was processing files, it
simply vanished -- no warnings, no errors, nothing (twice -- the third time,
I actually got some [relatively useless] data). So much for quality.
Secondarily, there are no truly useful wizards in it. Most of them are
fluff, and many of them do so little that it's more work to access the
wizard than it is to do by hand whatever the wizard would have done. I'm
sorry Leroy, but I don't see the appeal -- they just don't provide any
significant added value that I can see. Just another waste of time and
effort (of 200 developers?), if you asked me.

- Dennis