Board index » cppbuilder » Re: BCB future

Re: BCB future


2003-10-20 04:33:17 AM
cppbuilder12
Oscar Fuentes wrote:
Quote
4) They were confirming the "sound future" of BCB at the same time
they were developing CBX. No warning about the change was made.

That's what I call betrayal.
They were?
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"2 + 2 = 5, for extremely large values of 2." -- unknown
 
 

Re:Re: BCB future

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
[snip]
Quote
>It's a matter of confidence on the vendor. That's it.

Oh, no doubt. But if people get what they need, would confidence be far
away?
It depends on people's judgments, of course. As I'm not "people" <g>I
require more than a candy for recovering my confidence on a vendor
that failed badly on the past.
When this CBX thing started, I though it was great to see a new
Borland C++ framework and a good compiler. That, however, wouldn't be
enough for returning to Borland. There was still the problem with
customer support and product quality. I thought that if CBX were right
and Borland played nicely with its customers for one year, I would
consider a return.
Current BCB developers, instead of thinking about reasons for
returning, think about reasons to stay, but the criteria is similar,
IMO.
I need an assurance of Borland's serious commitment to its C++
customers. This doesn't happen thanks to an open letter, it needs a
long time. The current events just reinforces the previous negative
experience.
Quote
>BTW, I think it's the same reason why BCB was not a serious competitor
>for VC++6, on terms of market share.

I think that was mostly due to the managerial motto "you can't get fired
for buying MS".
Once on a time Borland was considered superior to MS and enjoyed more
market share on C++ tools. The change on this was largerly due to
Borland mistreating its customers. The history repeats, with the
difference that now Borland is not the market leader.
[snip]
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: BCB future

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Oscar Fuentes wrote:

>4) They were confirming the "sound future" of BCB at the same time
>they were developing CBX. No warning about the change was made.
>
>That's what I call betrayal.

They were?
Sure. The standard response to those who "announced" the dead of BCB
was "the next version is on the works".
And, indeed, they were right <g>
--
Oscar
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: BCB future

Oscar Fuentes wrote:
Quote
"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:

>Oscar Fuentes wrote:
>
>>4) They were confirming the "sound future" of BCB at the same time
>>they were developing CBX. No warning about the change was made.
>>
>>That's what I call betrayal.
>
>They were?

Sure. The standard response to those who "announced" the dead of BCB
was "the next version is on the works".
Was it? I don't remember that, but I didn't always read everything. When
did they start development on CBX?
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation."
- H. H. Munro (Saki) (1870-1916)
 

Re:Re: BCB future

Oscar Fuentes wrote:
Quote
I need an assurance of Borland's serious commitment to its C++
customers. This doesn't happen thanks to an open letter, it needs a
long time. The current events just reinforces the previous negative
experience.
I cna understand. But if Borland were not seriously committed, wouldn't
it have been a lot easier to simply produce a slightly improved BCB7,
with D7's VCL, and with no risk at all?
Quote
Once on a time Borland was considered superior to MS and enjoyed more
market share on C++ tools.
I know. But MS was a lot smaller, and Borland a lot bigger, then. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when
there is nothing left to take away."
- Antoine de Saint Exupéry
 

Re:Re: BCB future

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Oscar Fuentes wrote:

>I need an assurance of Borland's serious commitment to its C++
>customers. This doesn't happen thanks to an open letter, it needs a
>long time. The current events just reinforces the previous negative
>experience.

I cna understand. But if Borland were not seriously committed, wouldn't
it have been a lot easier to simply produce a slightly improved BCB7,
with D7's VCL, and with no risk at all?
Maybe they thought that BCB had no chance on the market anymore?
Quote
>Once on a time Borland was considered superior to MS and enjoyed more
>market share on C++ tools.

I know. But MS was a lot smaller, and Borland a lot bigger,
then. <g>
Yes. By that time (first half of the 90's?) MS probably was only 500x
bigger than Borland <g>
I sincerely hope some day Borland respects its customers as much as MS
respects their developer tools users.
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: BCB future

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Was it? I don't remember that, but I didn't always read everything. When
did they start development on CBX?
"Not overnight" <g>
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: BCB future

Oscar Fuentes wrote:
Quote
Maybe they thought that BCB had no chance on the market anymore?
Then CBX must be a much bigger risk, and requires more commitment.
Quote
>>Once on a time Borland was considered superior to MS and enjoyed more
>>market share on C++ tools.
>
>I know. But MS was a lot smaller, and Borland a lot bigger,
>then. <g>

Yes. By that time (first half of the 90's?) MS probably was only 500x
bigger than Borland <g>
I don't think so.
Quote
I sincerely hope some day Borland respects its customers as much as MS
respects their developer tools users.
MS respects them? The MFC wasn't updated for ages. VB.NET is a totally
different language. Etc. Etc.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"This book fills a much-needed gap."
-- Moses Hadas (1900-1966) in a review
 

Re:Re: BCB future

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
>Maybe they thought that BCB had no chance on the market anymore?

Then CBX must be a much bigger risk, and requires more commitment.
Let's see what CBX is:
Now: A Java IDE recycled from other project. Maybe the
compiler-agnostic feature may be staggering for those who ignore that
most available IDEs are compiler-agnostic already. You will not
impress a *nix developer with that product.
Known future: An old open source framework of dubious prestige.
Known future: A GUI designer for that framework which maybe or maybe
not is so productive as the BCB one.
Known future: A new compiler with an EDG front-end. Intel and others
provides the same since long time ago. Intel's backend shines.
Sure it shows *some* committment, but is looks as a re-packaging of
other's work.
Quote
>Yes. By that time (first half of the 90's?) MS probably was only 500x
>bigger than Borland <g>

I don't think so.
Ok, make that 250x.
Quote
>I sincerely hope some day Borland respects its customers as much as MS
>respects their developer tools users.

MS respects them? The MFC wasn't updated for ages.
'ages'? Please cite the year of the last update, the year of the first
MFC release *and* the year MS announced the stop on MFC updates. Then,
we could discuss if MS "dropped" the MFC people on the dust.
Quote
VB.NET is a totally different language.
The *crucial* difference here is that MS announced its plans long time
ago. People had time to plan ahead.
Quote
Etc. Etc.
Could you expand on this? <g>
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: BCB future

On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 23:50:22 +0200, Oscar Fuentes wrote:
Quote
<SNIP>
Let's see what CBX is:

Now: A Java IDE recycled from other project. Maybe the
compiler-agnostic feature may be staggering for those who ignore that
most available IDEs are compiler-agnostic already. You will not
impress a *nix developer with that product.

Known future: An old open source framework of dubious prestige.

On the first point: no argument from me. EMACS has been able to do all
this stuff for a decade or more. Multiple backends, multiple
change-control bindings, integrated de{*word*81}.... Most Unix folks would
look at CBX and think of it as a slower, uglier, and harder-to-use EMACS!
:-)
Second point: them's fightin' words, pardner! Seriously, wxWindows may be
old (although I would use "venerable" instead!) but it's been continuously
uipdated, and it has the best cross-platform support of any GUI toolkit
out there. It's a very high-quality toolkit, and they're working right
now to introduce some more modern C++ idioms into the toolkit. But I
prefer stability to "correctness" any day, and version 2.4.2 has been
working really well for the projects I've used it for.
mr_organic
 

Re:Re: BCB future

"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
[snip]
Quote
Second point: them's fightin' words, pardner! Seriously, wxWindows may be
old (although I would use "venerable" instead!) but it's been continuously
uipdated, and it has the best cross-platform support of any GUI toolkit
out there.
Do you know Qt?
Quote
It's a very high-quality toolkit,
Not my experience.
Quote
and they're working right
now to introduce some more modern C++ idioms into the toolkit.
At this rate, it will take just 10 years until they support SC++L
algorithms and iterators :-)
Quote
But I prefer stability to "correctness" any day, and version 2.4.2
has been working really well for the projects I've used it for.
For me, stability and correctness are tightly related. Correctness is
not related with support from certain technologies.
My experience with 2.2 was terrible. I was able to do more with Qt in
2 weeks than with wxWindows in 3 months. That was so thanks to the
documentation and the correctness (->stability & coherency), by the
way.
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: BCB future

On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 00:08:27 +0200, Oscar Fuentes wrote:
Quote
"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:

[snip]

>Second point: them's fightin' words, pardner! Seriously, wxWindows may be
>old (although I would use "venerable" instead!) but it's been continuously
>uipdated, and it has the best cross-platform support of any GUI toolkit
>out there.

Do you know Qt?

<SNIP>
Gah, a QT partisan! Fetch the torches and pitchforks! We will have to
agree to disagree here. I probably hate QT as much as you do wxWindows,
so we probably ought to shake hands like gentlemen and walk away....
;-)
As a side note, wasn't CLX based on QT? Did Borland quietly drop that?
IME, it was so slow and crashy under Windows as to be unusable -- plus it
didn't use the WIN32 widget set, which bothered my users no end.
mr_organic
 

Re:Re: BCB future

"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
>Do you know Qt?
>
><SNIP>

Gah, a QT partisan!
I hate Qt's event system and some other features (or lack
of). However, its runtime behavior matches the source code and that is
something I appreciate :-)
[snip]
Quote
As a side note, wasn't CLX based on QT?
Yes.
Quote
Did Borland quietly drop that?
I don't know.
Quote
IME, it was so slow and crashy under Windows as to be unusable
CLX was based on Qt 2.x and my experience starts with 3.x. That said,
I don't CLX reflects the problems of Qt.
Quote
-- plus it didn't use the WIN32 widget set, which bothered my users
no end.
So far I have no trouble with that.
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: BCB future

Quote
>Think OWL.

That was before the time I used C++.
You puppy
Quote
Rudy Velthuis wrote in message
news:xn0d4qey3ld8yv028rudyspc@none-8cxr845nph...
 

Re:Re: BCB future

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
>>Think OWL.
>That was before the time I used C++.
You puppy
<G>
--
Ken
planeta.terra.com.br/educacao/kencamargo/