Board index » delphi » Binstock can bite me!

Binstock can bite me!


2005-03-04 11:22:19 PM
delphi203
68.236.189.240/fullcolumn/column-20050301-03.html
"It also has a few oddball products like Delphi that, while not moribund,
are unlikely to see much adoption."
This guy brings up old news, and dismisses Themis outright. He's always
been an MS type of guy, but frankly, I think this was over the top.
Jeff.
 
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Jeffrey A. Wormsley writes:
Quote
This guy brings up old news, and dismisses Themis outright. He's
always been an MS type of guy, but frankly, I think this was over the
top.
One suspects he may have never actually used a Rational product. It's
hard for me to imagine anyone who has speaking positively of them.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
How to ask questions the smart way:
www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Hi Craig,
I had to use Rational Rose during a software seminar. Oh boy, don't get
me started :-)
-
Holger
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Well, I have sent my feedback on what I think of this article...
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Jeffrey A. Wormsley writes:
Quote
This guy brings up old news, and dismisses Themis outright. He's always
been an MS type of guy, but frankly, I think this was over the top.
Over the top and ignorant. This article was wrong in so many ways. I
can't believe he calls himself an "analyst." If this is the type of work
one can expect of Pacific Data Works, I see little reason to use their
services.
Let me get this straight. Microsoft is innovative because they release a
library that looks a lot like a Borland product he calls "oddball." And
does Microsoft, the model of innovation, offer a solution to bring
projects forward into its new framework as smoothly as Borland? No.
Maybe he doesn't know this because he thinks C# is Borland's only
venture into .Net.
Where I do agree is in its sentiment. I'd like to see some updating
of the visual components and commitment. I have brought it up before as
an example, and I will bring it up again, components like TDBGrid look and
function almost like they did in Delphi 1. I know there are better third
parties options, but Borland should try to throw a few new features in
some components with each Delphi release.
Andrew brought up Kylix, and Borland's management of it. I believe this
touches on something I have a pet peeve about. _I would like to see more
commitment from Borland when it chooses a solution._ They have
introduced some really cool ideas in the past, but abandon them too
quickly. It makes supporting solutions a moving target. ("Cool idea in
Delphi X. I hope it is there in the next version.") Some ideas needed a
replacement and were replaced. Some ideas over extended their stay
(WebSnap=yuk).
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Quote
Borland should try to throw a few new features in
some components with each Delphi release.
That's risky. It might break code and Borland would have no way of
knowing until too late. They could really only do it by adding new
components, and leaving the old ones there.
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
__________________________________________
Jim Cooper XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Tabdee Ltd www.tabdee.ltd.uk
TurboSync - Connecting Delphi to your Palm
__________________________________________
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

In article <42288d76$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>,
kyle#XXXX@XXXXX.COM says...
Quote
Over the top and ignorant. This article was wrong in so many ways. I
can't believe he calls himself an "analyst." I

A stock analyst is nothing more than a marketer aka spin-doctor. Have
you ever watched CNBC it is like a 24 hour a day info-commercial, The so-
called analysts do nothing more than peddle their stocks and mutual
funds.
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Jeffrey A. Wormsley writes:
Quote
This guy brings up old news, and dismisses Themis outright. He's
always been an MS type of guy, but frankly, I think this was over the
top.
So do we. We're working with him to help him better understand what
Borland offers. We're also working with SD Times on corrections to his
mistakes.
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it is not here, it is not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Jim Cooper writes:
Quote
That's risky. It might break code and Borland would have no way of
knowing until too late. They could really only do it by adding new
components, and leaving the old ones there.
Borland has added new features to existing components before (Action
property, Anchors, Docking, etc.) without breaking code. Some things are
deprecated (OnDrawDataCell); there are work arounds in other cases
(OldCreateOrder); or simply derive a whole new class
(TComboBox/TComboBoxEx) There is nothing in Borland history which shows
they have not taken that chance before and succeeded. In fact, they
must. A stagnant library will die.
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

"John Kaster (Borland)" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>wrote in
Quote
So do we. We're working with him to help him better understand what
Borland offers. We're also working with SD Times on corrections to his
mistakes.
Yes, I was surprised at the tone of this article. I figure a lot of their
articles are rehashed press releases written more by the company than the
reviewer (typical in the free trade papers, unfortunately), but even so,
most of the time when they even bother mentioning Borland (about every
third or fourth issue, IIRC) it has been in a mostly positive light. But
this one, whew! It really caught me off guard.
Jeff.
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Quote
Borland has added new features to existing components before
Sure, which is why I said "risky", not "impossible". They have to be
careful though, as many third-party components extend existing ones, and
Borland could introduce clashing code, particularly if they are adding
features already in said third-party controls.
Quote
or simply derive a whole new class
I said that, didn't I? Some releases have been better than others for
new components.
Quote
There is nothing in Borland history which shows
they have not taken that chance before and succeeded.
Interestingly, that sentence doesn't parse, yet I still know what you
mean :-)
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
__________________________________________
Jim Cooper XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Tabdee Ltd www.tabdee.ltd.uk
TurboSync - Connecting Delphi to your Palm
__________________________________________
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Jim Cooper writes:
Quote

Sure, which is why I said "risky", not "impossible".
All development introduces risk and can potentially break code.
(Remember changes in variants?) Some risks produce wonderful results,
like slipping TDataSet in the inheritance hiearchy.
Quote
>or simply derive a whole new class

I said that, didn't I?
No.
Quote
>There is nothing in Borland history which shows they have not taken
>that chance before and succeeded.

Interestingly, that sentence doesn't parse, yet I still know what you
mean :-)
Yea, let me move that "not". :-)
"There is nothing in Borland history which shows they have taken
that chance before and not succeeded."
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Quote
All development introduces risk and can potentially break code.
Not all development has the potential to break code actually, but yes,
most of the time there is risk. And the more changes you make, the more
risk. In this particular instance, the risk would get very high if
Borland were to start introducing features to components that duplicated
features in third-party components.
Also, as I think has been mentioned in these groups before, sometimes
the cost of the change itself is relatively low, but the cost of
checking for broken code is very high.
Quote
No.
Sure I did :
<quote>
They could really only do it by adding new components, and leaving the
old ones there.
</quote>
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
__________________________________________
Jim Cooper XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Tabdee Ltd www.tabdee.ltd.uk
TurboSync - Connecting Delphi to your Palm
__________________________________________
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Jeffrey A. Wormsley writes:
Quote
Yes, I was surprised at the tone of this article.
I was too. Honestly, it read like a blog rant, not an article that
should be published in a trade magazine. Maybe one of the market
tabloids ...
--
John Kaster blogs.borland.com/johnk
Features and bugs: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
If it is not here, it is not happening: ec.borland.com
 

Re:Binstock can bite me!

Jim Cooper writes:
Quote
That's risky. It might break code and Borland would have no way of
knowing until too late. They could really only do it by adding new
components, and leaving the old ones there.
Oh please Jim. Component vendor add new features to there components
all the time. Most of the time preserving backwards compatibility.
When they can not (take DevExpress dx ->cx controls) they rename them.
What a cop out.
--
QC Client: www.alphalink.com.au/~jed/QC/
Blog: jedqc.blogspot.com/
Configure Delphi the way you want it to be:
www.alphalink.com.au/~jed/dcm.htm
Checkout my code central submissions for D2005
cc.borland.com/ccweb.exe/author