Board index » cppbuilder » Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?


2004-09-24 10:47:32 PM
cppbuilder43
Quote
LOL! Considering that it probably was due
to sales that it was released in the state
it was,
The sales reps play no role in product releases.
H^2
 
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Quote
They seem a lot better in VS - useable at least.
Conditional breakpoints in VS seem as slow to me as they do in BCB. Even
slower for .net projects.
H^2
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Harold Howe [TeamB] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>LOL! Considering that it probably was due
>to sales that it was released in the state
>it was,

The sales reps play no role in product releases.
So?
You said in news:41542ac7$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM
<quote>
"This is why the sales force pushed for a new
release of CBX."
</quote>
Of course, them pushing didn't have any
influence over the decision of the developers
to abandone fixing BCB and rushing back to
CBX. Certainly. Of course. I can see that.
Err, I suspect that's exactly why you said
above sentence in your post?
Quote
H^2
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
"Vesty" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:

>Was it just blatant carrot dangling? Or did you get the impression
>there was some chance that wx support would be completed at a later
>date?

There is too much personal interpretation involved to accurately
answer that. They have a "never say never" attitude, because that
burns bridges. It might happen, but don't hold your breath.
Ok thanks, thats about what I figured.
--
Vesty.
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:41542a90$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
I know this sounds annoying when CBX' price
comes in, but with Comeau + Dinkumware you
get about as much std compliance as money
can buy for rather little money and it works
on both Windows and Linux. (Comeau uses GCC,
BCC, or VC as a backend, and you can get all
those for free now.)
Also, we do crossplatform among Windows and
Linux (and more) and both VC7.1 and a recent
GCC (which you might want to combine with
Dinkumware) are both darn good compilers when
it comes to std compliance and thus rather
easy to do crossplatform stuff with.
Absolutely agree. MSVC7.1 with Dinkumware is
a very good compiler. We're doing our cross platform
with MSVC/Qt on Windows and GCC/Qt on Linux.
There's very little difference in the code. There werea few differences when porting from BCC32
though.
(like what is math.h?)
Comeau now is also available
for linux so that's interesting as well.
The problem is, if I did what you suggest and
purchased Comeau (linux/win32) and use Qt for GUI
stuff then that leaves $1000US for just an IDE.
With no native memory checkers etc. (codeguard,
memoryvalidator etc.) I don't see that as viable.
And to top it off, as you've mentioned, releasing CBX when
it was barely in a pre-beta state was probably a very bad
management decision on Borland's part.
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Duane Hebert < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:41542a90$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>I know this sounds annoying when CBX' price
>comes in [...]

The problem is, if I did what you suggest and
purchased Comeau (linux/win32) and use Qt for GUI
stuff then that leaves $1000US for just an IDE.
[...]
I just knew this would come up... :)
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Hendrik Schober wrote:
Quote
>>A similar thing happened with forwarding constructors.
What kind of beast are they?
A constructor that forwards to another constructor in the same class.
This is needed because although you can forward regular functions, and
call a common function from the constructor body if you wish, there is
no way to foward the initializer list.
For more details:
www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1618.pdf
although I seem to have some problems reading that right now. Just in
case, that is a revision to this paper:
www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1581.pdf
From memory the main difference was how to treat exceptions thrown from
the forwarding constructor body.
AlisdairM(TeamB)
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Alisdair Meredith (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Hendrik Schober wrote:

>>>A similar thing happened with forwarding constructors.

>What kind of beast are they?

A constructor that forwards to another constructor in the same class.
[...]
Oh, I remember that.
Thanks!
Quote
AlisdairM(TeamB)
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Hendrik Schober wrote:
Quote
Harold Howe [TeamB] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>>LOL! Considering that it probably was due
>>to sales that it was released in the state
>>it was,
>
>The sales reps play no role in product releases.

So?
Let me elaborate. Sales reps do not determine product release schedules.
When CBX 1.0 was initially released, the sales reps had never seen it.
They didn't play a role in determining when it was released.
Now that it has been released and they have been selling it, they are
pushing to get an update because the quality of CBX 1.0 is hindering
their ability to sell it. The reps want Borland to place a high priority
on getting a new version of CBX ready. However, once the beta happens,
the sales reps will not have a say (I hope) in deciding when the field
test is complete. That would just be stupid.
So yes, the sales reps have been pushing Borland to place a higher
priority on CBX than BCB. But it is not their fault that the build
options explorer is broke in cbx 1.0.
H^2
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Harold Howe [TeamB] < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
[...]

So yes, the sales reps have been pushing Borland to place a higher
priority on CBX than BCB. But it is not their fault that the build
options explorer is broke in cbx 1.0.
I see. Thanks for elaborating.
Quote
H^2
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Chris or anyone else,
Sorry to jump into this thread but I've had no luck getting an answer to
this question in any other section.... I need to change my builder dev
environment to a new computer and want to know the easiest way to do it....
I installed Builder on the new box, then moved all Borland dirs and my vcls
to the new box.... then moved Borland registry settings over to the new box
but the new box still doesn't see any of the external ( to Borland ) vcl
packages I've got installed on the first box.... does anyone know what I'm
missing here.... Hate to have to reinstall all the packages again.
Thanks,
Al
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote
Quote
I guess it's better than having the lawyers running the show. :)
An excellent point. ;-)
Dave
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Quote
5) Codeguard - a very dodgy resource leak tracker. We already had an
integrated Turbopower Memproof tracker that does a much better job. Turbopower
died - perhaps we could have something similar to Memproof as an in-built leak
checker to the IDE.
It's not just a resource leak tracker, it's an extremely useful tool.
The TurboPower product reported too many false alarms with BCB6 (vector,
string, stuff that I'm sure didn't leak), and MemProof didn't work as
well with BCB6 as with BCB5 (maybe they adapted MemProof for BCB6 in the
meantime, I don't know). CodeGuard is usually right (read it:
practically always), if it spots an error, there's something wrong. It
catches buffer overruns, which are worse than memory leaks.
Once after several days of chasing random crashes without success,
CodeGuard found the problem in a moment. The size of an object inside a
LIB didn't match the size of the (seemingly) same object in the EXE. It
immediately reported a size mismatch, and after that, it was fairly easy
to figure out that the include path had the wrong order, and the wrong
file was included (there's nothing worse than two files with the same
name in two different libraries). Another terrible problem is when a 3rd
party LIB requires that enums are treated as 32-bit values, but VCL
treats then as 8-bit, and it can easily crash. CodeGuard find all of them.
It easily catches problems that you don't even notice, but would sooner
or later crash (usually during the most important demo on a trade show
or a Web conference). Years ago I caught auto_ptr leaking (at that time
I didn't know that it was very common, I'm not using auto_ptr in class
members since then). First I questioned CodeGuard, but when a
::MessageBox in the d'tor didn't show up, I was conviced that it was
right. It's a very useful tool, even if I have to rebuild the Universe
with CodeGuard turned on.
Tom
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

Vesty wrote:
Quote
Vesty wrote:

>I may have already asked this elsewhere, but is this 'new release'
>a new version or an update?

I had... and you've since answered it.
It will be free, if I recall JT's slides at the meet the team
correctly. Paul Gustavson blogged the following:
<quote>
Okay, back to JT's presentation. Currently, Borland is preparing to
ship a free update to CBX users code named Boomerang. It will be more
stable and include Code Complete.
</quote>
Full blog entry here:
www.simventions.com/gustavson/2004/09/borcon-c-meet-team.html
 

Re:Re: BorCon 2004: A New Hope for C++Builder?

"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
Quote
I just knew this would come up... :)
Of course but given all of the other points, how
could it not come up. It becomes the sole concern
in a decision to buy the product. I mean that I don't
see any value added (or actually just value<g>).