Board index » delphi » Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test


2007-02-14 01:09:01 AM
delphi209
Quote
Brandon Staggs writes:

>I eventually changed my mind after consideration, but it seems
>that everyone else is worried about CodeGear screwing them. How odd.

There are some folks here who feel quite bitter about things Borland
has done in the past. I can understand that. All I can do is press
forward, doing the right thing. I personally think that opening up the
Field Test as I have is a step in that direction. Time and differing
actions is, I suppose, the only thing that will "de-bitterize" people.

Yep, there are a lot of hard feelings - myself for one - but Borland
is Borland and Codegear is Codegear. A new company, with new
opportunities and possibilities. I for one am willing to wipe the
slate clean and start over - it shouldn't take long to determine what
the direction of Codegear is/will be - especially after a release or
two. Everything I have seen over the last few weeks is very
encouraging and holds promise of a better tomorrow for all of us.
So, with so many positive leaps forward, I cannot imagine that you all
would purposely repeat many of the disastrous mistakes that were made
by Borland and loose the ground you have taken.
Good luck!
 
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Bill --
Thanks for the kind words.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Nick already stated that a company NDA would be possible, so
Porgrammer A and Programmer B could discuss the issue.
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Quote
Nick Hodges (CodeGear) writes:
>
>I'll note once again, for those folks wondering, that the NDA
>unequivocally, undoubtedly, and absolutely does not restrict, in any
>way, one's ability to criticize released products. it is actually
>explicit about that very thing.
>

Nick,

Perhaps the best way to clear up any misconceptions about the nature of
the NDA is for you to post it publicly for any and all to review at
their convenience. This way anyybody could see *exactly* what they would
have to agree to before entering the field test, rather than
(mis)interpreting the layman's summary you posted on your blog.

I disagree. One thing Codegear does not need is hard feelings from
the past sneaking into the test - it would be a waste of time. So,
those that harbor these hard feelings may not want to join the field
test due to their hard feelings - which in the long run is good for
all of us.
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Bill Mullen <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Yep, there are a lot of hard feelings - myself for one - but Borland
is Borland and Codegear is Codegear. A new company, with new
opportunities and possibilities. I for one am willing to wipe the
slate clean and start over - it shouldn't take long to determine what
the direction of Codegear is/will be - especially after a release or
two. Everything I have seen over the last few weeks is very
encouraging and holds promise of a better tomorrow for all of us.

So, with so many positive leaps forward, I cannot imagine that you all
would purposely repeat many of the disastrous mistakes that were made
by Borland and loose the ground you have taken.

Good luck!
What... you mean that you could just "Keep On Smilin"?
www.youtube.com/watch
...might just work.
;)
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
And with all due respect (and I MEAN that) right back, signing such a
restrictive NDA gives CodeGear a club to hold over the head of anyone who
then criticizes the PRODUCT.
For whatever it is worth, I believe this scenario is perfectly plausible.
Assume you participated in the field test, found a dozen reproducible bugs
in the product, reported them all to CodeGear, and none of them were fixed
before it shipped.
Once you get a retail/release copy of the final product with your own
activation key, you're a regular buyer/member of the public like everyone
else. You Install and Activate your copy of the software. You identify
some bugs in the software. You QC those bugs. Then you plaster the
newsgroups with the QC Numbers, and the obligatory "First" posts (i.e. I
found the first bug in Delphi 2007! Hah!).
When other people ask "how'd you find those bugs so fast?" you just smile
and say "I had a funny feeling about that new VCL->WPF Converter, and that
OSX Cross Compiler just smelled off...*" There's no reason to mention
anything about the Field Test, for you or for CodeGear.
Now, if your dozen bugs get no ratings or votes in QC, then maybe they
weren't as "stop ship" critical as you may have thought. Who knows? I
don't think Delphi has ever been defect-free.
While you may not be able to give Programmer B hope that things are
looking good in the Field Test version, you have the hope of contributing
towards a better release than without your participation. Whether that's
worth the price of your silence, or some awkward workarounds, or not, is
your call. What's the compromise quote? Where no one gets their way? <g>
--
-Brion
* I ain't got no clue whether or not any of those things are in the Field
Test, or even a twinkle in CodeGear's eye, or even semantically possible
There's no such thing as 'one, true way;'
- Mercedes Lackey
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

In article <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Dennis Cote says...
Quote
The fundamental problem is that natural languages are not designed to be
unambigous
Neither is the language in which legal documents are framed - it is just
an old language. The language that dominates legalese _was_ a natural
language in its time.
Quote
By analogy, even with a modern programming
language such as Delphi automated speach recognition is not simple (or
even possible).
True, although it almost certainly is possble (in Delphi), but it would
not be simple in whatever language was employed. But I suggest that it
would be easier, even for someone who knows nothing about speech
recognition, to read and comprehend a Delphi implementation than, say,
one in C.
The complexity of the task wouldn't be reduced, but the result would be
more accessible.
Quote
This sounds a lot like the attempts of some programmers to introduce new
programming languages, such as D, but being brushed off by the hordes of
programmer fluent in Delphi and C++ because it would be to hard to
integrate with their existig code, or product, or customers, etc.
Similar I agree, but it is interesting that you list very _practical_
reasons for resisting change. I contend that the primary motivation for
resisting change in legal language is not practical but self serving.
I sincerely wish Delphi programmers got the same hourly rate as lawyers.
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
Say, do any of you guys know how to Madison?
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Wayne,
| If you know about a bug that is in the released product and can
| reproduce it there, then you do not have to keep quiet about it just
| because no-one else has mentioned that bug publicly. There is nothing
| about such a bug that is "proprietary".
Could someone on the field test say: "This bug in the released product
was discovered in the field test but was not fixed prior to release."?
--
Q
02/13/2007 12:55:18
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

In article <45d225f1$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Q Correll says...
Quote
Wayne,

| If you know about a bug that is in the released product and can
| reproduce it there, then you do not have to keep quiet about it just
| because no-one else has mentioned that bug publicly. There is nothing
| about such a bug that is "proprietary".

Could someone on the field test say: "This bug in the released product
was discovered in the field test but was not fixed prior to release."?
aiui Only if the fact of it is discovery during the FT is itself public
knowledge or could be inferred from same (e.g. part of a Known Issues
list), otherwise making this statement would reveal that person's
involvement in the FT (how else could they know?)
The could of course _speculate_ that the bug _might_ have been
discovered during the FT and [:now entering the realm of observable
fact:] wasn't fixed prior to release (evident from the fact of the bug
being present IN the release).
;)
--
Jolyon Smith
WHILE INKEY$ WEND
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Q,
Quote
Could someone on the field test say: "This bug in the released product
was discovered in the field test but was not fixed prior to release."?
wouldn't that be [akin to] admitting to being on the field test ??
then no - no one can _ever_ know you were on the filed test.
--
Dave
Founding Member & Chief Evangelist
Delphi Hobbyists and Occupational Developers
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Jolyon Smith writes:
Quote

I sincerely wish Delphi programmers got the same hourly rate as lawyers.

;)

I think your argument shows how they can. They just have to stop
changing languages so often. Keep using Delphi until it is very old and
only understood by a select few. Then they will command the big bucks.
I have often heard that the few programmers who still do COBOL are paid
very handsomely for their efforts.
Dennis Cote
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

In article <45d23d1a$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, Dennis Cote says...
Quote
I have often heard that the few programmers who still do COBOL are paid
very handsomely for their efforts.
But that is more as a compensation for their pain than recognition of
their skill.
lol
--
Jolyon Smith
WHILE INKEY$ WEND
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Bill Mullen writes:
Quote
Yep, there are a lot of hard feelings - myself for one - but Borland
is Borland and Codegear is Codegear.
A new logo does not make a new company.
The legal team is still Borland's.
The web site team is still Borland's.
The sale channels is still Borland's.
Their top management is still Borland.
Their immediate management consists of the same people, but with new
logos on their name tags.
If it walks like a duck...
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Jolyon,
| The could of course speculate that the bug might have been
| discovered during the FT and [:now entering the realm of observable
| fact:] wasn't fixed prior to release (evident from the fact of the
| bug being present IN the release).
<chuckle>
--
Q
02/13/2007 16:14:31
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
 

Re: Opening Up the Delphi Field Test

Dave,
| wouldn't that be [akin to] admitting to being on the field test ??
| then no - no one can ever know you were on the filed test.
Not necessarily. A field tester could have broken the NDA and told
someone who then repeats it in the form I typed. Or, a CG employee not
bound by the NDA could have mentioned it in the same fashion. ;-)
--
Q
02/13/2007 16:15:03
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]