BCB Open Community Letter

This is the forum for general discussion.

Moderator: 2ffat

BCB Open Community Letter

Postby Damon » Sat Oct 23, 2004 2:47 am

Read more at http://ocl.bcbjournal.org.

Cheers,
Damon
Last edited by Damon on Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Damon
BCBJ Editor and Admin
BCBJ Editor and Admin
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Wed May 26, 2004 11:25 pm
Location: Stillwater, OK, USA

Postby GD Stoltz » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:01 pm

Reading the comments that accompanied the C++ Community Letter filled me with enormous and indescribable sadness. These programmers all believe staunchly in what they are doing, their own worth, and to what they committed themselves for; the mastery of a very difficult programming language that offers unbounded opportunity, and they are always prepared to go the extra mile.

C++ Builder is used by large enterprises down to the one man consultant, all making a livelihood with this compiler. I would consider all of them experts in the programming field because I believe that this is the very nature of a C++ programmer.

It has compelled me to write this. Please read through and comment as you like.

Three years ago, my company sub-contracted for a new revolutionary Airport Resource Management System. I suggested C++ Builder to the main contractor. They declined it immediately. The reason: – Borland was not considered dependable on the long term as far as sticking with a compiler. At the time I felt so undignified by this statement, not knowing that they were right after all. How embarrassed I feel now. So I had to develop the whole system in VC 6. The system is running all of the resources at some major international airports, amongst others, the Seattle airport. The eventual target is 1700 international airports. What a coup this would have been for Borland.

Still I love my C++ Builder with its “Pascal Framework”.

I have never been converted by Visual Studio .NET, even after undertaking such a major project, and owning the latest Visual Studio Architect .NET compiler.

My own company’s software is still being developed in C++ Builder as I consider it the best option. This is after considering that Borland C++ 5.02 disappeared from the scene together with the powerful OWL, which had to be converted into OWLNext. Most of the Borland C++ programmers at the time converted to Microsoft VC 5. Borland lost out big time and “bled big time”. I stuck through it all, helping converting OWLNext to C++ Builder 6 without any help from Borland. Borland simply dropped the support for OWL in C++ Builder 6.

And now, I think, history repeats itself. Borland does not consider us C+++ Builder programmers a mainline income generator. They do not seem to consider strategic reasons for supporting the C++ Builder community. What really happened at Borland with C++ Builder Team during the last eighteen months?

I am convinced that there is a serious legal issue, and Borland is not coming clean with us concerning the issues at hand. The Borland Team has been “gagged”. Let me pose a few questions that need to be answered to support my speculation:

1. There was a White Paper prepared in November 2003 on how to convert VCL projects to C++ Builder X projects. It was stopped by the legal department. Why was it stopped, and what happened, and for what reasons?

2. Borland licensed .NET, plus IDE interface from Microsoft (Delphi looks similar to Visual Studio .NET for those who do not know). It is obvious that this licence did not include C++ Builder. Were the C++ Builder users the proverbial “Sacrificial Lambs” for the Delphi guy’s transition to .NET? Is this the price Microsoft accosted from Borland for licensing their technology so that Microsoft still dominates the C++ programming industry?

Borland’s legal department must come clean; I do not think they understand the repercussions of so many companies using Borland products and now being forced into a corner. Why else thus dead silience? Borland will have to licence the .NET technology for C++ Builder also, even if only for strategic reasons.

Therefore, I ask of Borland to come clean one way or the other. I like the C++ Builder X/Java interface a lot as a Java programmer. It is far superior to the Delphi/Visual Studio type interface, anyway, and also supports Together 6 (I have C++ Builder X Enterprise, JBuilder X Enterprise and Together Control Centre 6.1). Why not continuing with the original plans that made us all so excited?

Programmers, I sincerely hope that I am wrong about some of the issues and we will soon see our favourite compiler at the bleeding edge technology once more!
GD Stoltz
 

Reply

Postby 2ffat » Mon Nov 01, 2004 11:43 am

I noticed that Borland has replied to the letter: http://www.simventions.com/gustavson/20 ... ation.html
James P. Cottingham

Look at me still talking
when there is science to do.
User avatar
2ffat
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:07 am
Location: South Hill, VA

...Turning blue...

Postby Spaggie » Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:35 am

from holding my breath....
Spaggie
 

it's coming

Postby Spaggie » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:10 pm

http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,32845,00.html

that'll do

Cheers Borland - I love you !
Spaggie
 

Whew!!!

Postby 2ffat » Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:19 pm

That's a relief! :D
James P. Cottingham

Look at me still talking
when there is science to do.
User avatar
2ffat
Forum Mod
Forum Mod
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 7:07 am
Location: South Hill, VA


Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests