Board index » cppbuilder » BCB future

BCB future


2003-10-17 07:28:27 AM
cppbuilder43
To Borland / John Kaster:
I am another unhappy customer. Unless Borland quickly forms a strategy and
communicates it to its users, I will soon stop using Borland products. E.g.
I wasted 3 months in early 2003 trying to make Kylix work, only to find out
that Borland is not serious about supporting it. BCB-X, out-of-the-blue and
immature, brings my frustration to a new high. Over the years I saw Borland
changing its name, managers and focus way too often.
Why do I still bother with Borland then? With Delphi/BCB Anders Hejlsberg
and his colleagues created a gem, to this date there no GUI development tool
that can match it, I've evaluated quite a few. Here is why I love it:
1) It is compiled =>executables run fast.
2) It is based on good language (C++ / Pascal). I can access hardware
resources, manipulate bits, organize my code logically, etc.
3) It is relatively easy to create and integrate new components.
4) The GUI editor is very productive, yet flexible (one is not forced to use
a very narrow template).
All these strengths were there back in 1996, not much of use to me has been
added since then. I would like to see Borland to work on enhancing overall
quality, adding and enriching (mainly GUI) controls. Make it even easier to
create and integrate components. Enhance the provided C/Pascal libraries,
e.g. there are many GUI and string manipulation functions that are used so
frequently that they should come in the box (e.g. regular-expression
parsing).
I am unhappy to see Borland repeatedly chasing the next big trend (remember
Inprise?) - perhaps there is some easy money in Java and Web-services, but
how long will it last? Does Borland posses any significant advantage over
the competitors in these areas? Is Borland aiming to be the World leader in
fighting the next Year-2000 bug? At times it maybe smart to reach for this
easy money, but why neglect BCB/Delphi? By alienating its Delphi/BCB users
Borland is wasting an opportunity to have a stable, long-term revenue
source, albeit not extremely large. BTW, it would be OK with me if BCB cost
more than it does now, provided that it would be adding features that I
would use. I have to develop in-house or buy from 3rd-parties many things
for which there is universal need (e.g. a good grid). At this moment
Qt-Designer is more expensive and less productive than BCB, yet Trolltech
may win me over because they appear to be rational and trustworthy people.
Most retail Win32 SW is written using VC++, the GUI is usually created
in-house using Win32 API (or MFC) at high cost. Delphi/BCB/Borland are
often not considered industrial-strength. If Borland beefed up quality and
support, it could win many of these customers. I knew several people who
used BCB for prototyping and for in-house utilities, but they still chose
VC++ for their product.
 
 

Re:BCB future

Quote
I am another unhappy customer. Unless Borland quickly forms a strategy
and
communicates it to its users, I will soon stop using Borland products.
Agreed. I have invested several times on BCB and if Borland stop supporting
it
I will also adopt the Good Bye Borland philosophy.
Rodolfo
 

Re:BCB future

I think people have said it before it would be great if Borland could
merge their products instead of diverging, one more powerful compiler
with top support would be more appealing than a number of compilers
some with less support. If we are to get wxWindows it would be great
if we could have C++, wxWindows and VCL all in the same compiler.
Some have even suggested the merging of pascal into the product.
Lunix sounds like a bit of a lost cause. I am a great supporter of
C++Builder, for me it is the greatest compiler and product which has
ever been released in the field of computing, I hope for our sakes Borland
keeps us in support.
Regards Digby Millikan
www.users.on.net/digbym
 

{smallsort}

Re:BCB future

"Digby Millikan" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I think people have said it before it would be great if Borland could
merge their products instead of diverging, one more powerful compiler
with top support would be more appealing than a number of compilers
some with less support. If we are to get wxWindows it would be great
if we could have C++, wxWindows and VCL all in the same compiler.
It's a Good thought. I think Builder is lovely. Hope it becomes real in the
near future.
Regards
Rodolfo
 

Re:BCB future

Do you use the Enterprise edition? It is ample for my desktop applications
C++, STL,VCL and numerous third party components available, what type
of applications do you develop?
Digby Millikan
www.users.on.net/digbym
 

Re:BCB future

I use the professional version which is quite good. I would like to
try the enterprise version one day, but as things are now I think
It'll be very unlikely. All kinds :)
Rodolfo
"Digby Millikan" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Do you use the Enterprise edition? It is ample for my desktop applications
C++, STL,VCL and numerous third party components available, what type
of applications do you develop?
 

Re:BCB future

"Radim Cernej" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
All these strengths were there back in 1996, not much of use to me has
been added since then.
You make some strong points but I can't let this pass!
In 1996 Delphi did not target Win32, and you could not use VCL with C++.
There are both significant additions to the original product that you seem
to take as a given.
The C++ compiler in BCB6 is significantly ahead of the compiler in the
original BCB. It may not be everything we want it to be today, but don't
let that blind you to how far it has come. [Anyone else remember the STL
'breaking' when they couldn't store auto_ptr in vectors any more?]
Now Borland are making another move, like Win16 ->Win32. Delphi is
following Windows to .NET, and the C++ products are going cross-platform.
This is probably the most significant progress for the general purpose
developer since BCB.
AlisdairM
 

Re:BCB future

I quite believe that Borland will not give up CBuilder/Delphi .
They know what they are doing now.
After all , CBuilder/Delphi is such a good product , having a big market .
Borland do need to provide better surport to their product in order to make
coustoms feel safe enough to pay .
Anyhow , I hope Borland can be a better company .
"Radim Cernej" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >дʼ
Quote
To Borland / John Kaster:

I am another unhappy customer. Unless Borland quickly forms a strategy
and
communicates it to its users, I will soon stop using Borland products.
E.g.
I wasted 3 months in early 2003 trying to make Kylix work, only to find
out
that Borland is not serious about supporting it. BCB-X, out-of-the-blue
and
immature, brings my frustration to a new high. Over the years I saw
Borland
changing its name, managers and focus way too often.

Why do I still bother with Borland then? With Delphi/BCB Anders Hejlsberg
and his colleagues created a gem, to this date there no GUI development
tool
that can match it, I've evaluated quite a few. Here is why I love it:

1) It is compiled =>executables run fast.
2) It is based on good language (C++ / Pascal). I can access hardware
resources, manipulate bits, organize my code logically, etc.
3) It is relatively easy to create and integrate new components.
4) The GUI editor is very productive, yet flexible (one is not forced to
use
a very narrow template).

All these strengths were there back in 1996, not much of use to me has
been
added since then. I would like to see Borland to work on enhancing
overall
quality, adding and enriching (mainly GUI) controls. Make it even easier
to
create and integrate components. Enhance the provided C/Pascal libraries,
e.g. there are many GUI and string manipulation functions that are used so
frequently that they should come in the box (e.g. regular-expression
parsing).

I am unhappy to see Borland repeatedly chasing the next big trend
(remember
Inprise?) - perhaps there is some easy money in Java and Web-services, but
how long will it last? Does Borland posses any significant advantage over
the competitors in these areas? Is Borland aiming to be the World leader
in
fighting the next Year-2000 bug? At times it maybe smart to reach for
this
easy money, but why neglect BCB/Delphi? By alienating its Delphi/BCB
users
Borland is wasting an opportunity to have a stable, long-term revenue
source, albeit not extremely large. BTW, it would be OK with me if BCB
cost
more than it does now, provided that it would be adding features that I
would use. I have to develop in-house or buy from 3rd-parties many things
for which there is universal need (e.g. a good grid). At this moment
Qt-Designer is more expensive and less productive than BCB, yet Trolltech
may win me over because they appear to be rational and trustworthy people.
Most retail Win32 SW is written using VC++, the GUI is usually created
in-house using Win32 API (or MFC) at high cost. Delphi/BCB/Borland are
often not considered industrial-strength. If Borland beefed up quality
and
support, it could win many of these customers. I knew several people who
used BCB for prototyping and for in-house utilities, but they still chose
VC++ for their product.


 

Re:BCB future

AlisdairM wrote:
Quote
You make some strong points but I can't let this pass!

In 1996 Delphi did not target Win32, and you could not use VCL with C++.
Sorry, but D2 did target Win32 in '96. BCB1 released late in '96 was
based on D2.
.a
 

Re:BCB future

AlisdairM wrote:
Quote
[Anyone else remember the STL
'breaking' when they couldn't store auto_ptr in vectors any more?]
I remember, and it's a good thing you can't store auto_ptr in vectors
anymore -- you just shouldn't do that. BCB5 compiles such code as
std::vector<std::auto_ptr<TButton>>without any warning, but of course
that will fail miserably. BCB 6 doesn't compile that thing anymore, and
that's the correct behavior (reference: Effective STL by Scott Meyers).
You should not be able to store auto_ptr in STL containers, it is always
a mistake.
Some folks complained that they couldn't compile their code anymore
under BCB6, but they probably didn't even suspect how dangerously wrong
their code was. You could crash your application easily if the compiler
didn't show an error message.
Tom
 

Re:BCB future

Tamas Demjen wrote:
Quote
AlisdairM wrote:

>[Anyone else remember the STL
>'breaking' when they couldn't store auto_ptr in vectors any more?]

I remember, and it's a good thing you can't store auto_ptr in vectors
anymore -- you just shouldn't do that. BCB5 compiles such code as
std::vector<std::auto_ptr<TButton>>without any warning, but of
course that will fail miserably. BCB 6 doesn't compile that thing
anymore, and that's the correct behavior (reference: Effective STL by
Scott Meyers). You should not be able to store auto_ptr in STL
containers, it is always a mistake.
One can easily and effortlessly use "std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<TButton>
" .
 

Re:BCB future

"Radim Cernej" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

I am unhappy to see Borland repeatedly chasing the next big trend
(remember
Inprise?) - perhaps there is some easy money in Java and Web-services, but
You just prompted me to count how many blunders Borland has committed for
the last decade. Here is my list:
- losing Anders, et al to MS
- Inprise jitters
- Corel infatuation
- CLX half baked solution
- Togethersoft waste of money
- BCX ...
 

Re:BCB future

Quote
- Togethersoft waste of money
- BCX ...
I personally like what Togethersoft and BCX provides
too me. I don't like the fact that Borland has been losing money
since the Togethersoft purchase.
Robert Love
 

Re:BCB future

I like Togethersoft very much . It is more powerful than Rational .
"Robert Love" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >????
Quote
I personally like what Togethersoft and BCX provides
too me. I don't like the fact that Borland has been losing money
since the Togethersoft purchase.

Robert Love
 

Re:BCB future

Quote

You just prompted me to count how many blunders Borland has committed for
the last decade. Here is my list:
- losing Anders, et al to MS
- Inprise jitters
- Corel infatuation
- CLX half baked solution
- Togethersoft waste of money
- BCX ...
As a former stockholder who was torpedoed countless times before I figured
out the stock was never going anywhere, I totally agree -- although, losing
Anders was out of their control given the massive chunk of change MSFT laid
on him (AND the vacation long between jobs <g>) and Borland's financial
situation at the time.
I really thought Fuller was going to turn it around, as Yocum talked a good
game but couldn't perform. It was obvious after Corel that there continued
to be major problems.
Although the BCB customer base may be small, it was committed. While code
compliance is a lofty goal, and ultimately could yield more customers, the
way they're doing it amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
If they abandon me as a user (once again) there are no circumstances that
could lead me to roll the dice with Borland again. I'm getting the idea I'm
not the only person who feels this way.
I'm certain I'll be looking for a development platform that allows me to
develop in a standards-compliant fashion. I'm also certain I will not be
buying it from Borland.
Delphi developers would do well to look, learn and plan, because it is just
a matter of time.