Borland Communication
I received a phone call from Borland on October 28, 2004, and, was given the opportunity to further elaborate on the community's needs and requirements as well as suggestions for putting BCB back in the hands of the community. Based on what was shared, I was very encouraged by the commitment Borland is showing to address our issues regarding BCB!
One of the things that was impressed upon me was the development team's desire to seek the assistance of community members to help in such things as product validation. However, the decision to carry on BCB ultimately rests upon Borland Management. Based on what was stated, I have no doubt we will hear a clear decision regarding the future of BCB on or before Dec 15th . Stay tuned!
---
Here was the initial reponse received from Borland on October 22, 2004, the day the community letter was sent.
http:Borland_Response_To_Cover_Letter.pdf
One of the things that was impressed upon me was the development team's desire to seek the assistance of community members to help in such things as product validation. However, the decision to carry on BCB ultimately rests upon Borland Management. Based on what was stated, I have no doubt we will hear a clear decision regarding the future of BCB on or before Dec 15th . Stay tuned!
---
Here was the initial reponse received from Borland on October 22, 2004, the day the community letter was sent.
http:Borland_Response_To_Cover_Letter.pdf
1 Comments:
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 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. Borland will have to licence the .NET technology for C++ Builder, 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. It is far superior to the Delphi/Visual interface, anyway, and also supports Together 6 (Yes, I have C++ Builder X Enterprise, JBuilder X Enterprise and Together Control Center 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
Post a Comment
<< Home