Future of C++Builder?
For quite sometime I openly wondered about the future of Borland's C++ product line. As an avid user of C++Builder and a co-author of the last two books on C++Builder, I had much at stake in the decision and direction Borland would take with C++. Would it be the new C++BuilderX (CBX), a Java-based, VCL-less IDE, or would the windows-based, VCL-driven C++Builder (BCB) make a return? After hardly a mention over the last 9 months from the folks at Borland, I had placed this concern on the bottom of my list of matters. Instead, other products such as Borland’s Together tied with Microsoft’s Visual Studio (C#) have become prominent tools in my toolbox. But now, just weeks before the upcoming BorCon event in San Jose, I wonder again.
There are rumblings that an announcement will be made. I have no idea what the decision will be. However, what I do know is that the lack of announcement might equate to a decision not to continue with the production of a C++ product, which would be another major disappointment at best.
Instead, what I hope to see at Borland is a rally by the community for Borland to focus again on the C++ product line. And for Borland to respond with a genuine concern, a favorable decision, and clear direction! Part of that desired response, however, may be contingent upon our approach.
While it will be easy and tempting to beat up Borland regarding their lack of action and communication, as well as sharing of their vision, I think the more appropriate approach would be to show a unified front of what our needs and wants are as a community. Criticism, if it’s not constructive, will likely continue to keep the Borland C++ Bus at bay. However, a unified front can result in mutual encouragement for the community of developers and Borland giving them clear direction and confidence in knowing how they should proceed.
So, in one of my next Blog posts, I hope to share what I think are some of the important wants and needs are as far as C++; issues that we can rally behind. I will also scan the Borland newsgroups for your takes and desires.
Be sure to check back here again soon for those thoughts!!! Also I encourage you to bookmark Dr.Bob's Programming Clinic for current insights regarding C++Builder, Delphi and other Borland products & happenings.
There are rumblings that an announcement will be made. I have no idea what the decision will be. However, what I do know is that the lack of announcement might equate to a decision not to continue with the production of a C++ product, which would be another major disappointment at best.
Instead, what I hope to see at Borland is a rally by the community for Borland to focus again on the C++ product line. And for Borland to respond with a genuine concern, a favorable decision, and clear direction! Part of that desired response, however, may be contingent upon our approach.
While it will be easy and tempting to beat up Borland regarding their lack of action and communication, as well as sharing of their vision, I think the more appropriate approach would be to show a unified front of what our needs and wants are as a community. Criticism, if it’s not constructive, will likely continue to keep the Borland C++ Bus at bay. However, a unified front can result in mutual encouragement for the community of developers and Borland giving them clear direction and confidence in knowing how they should proceed.
So, in one of my next Blog posts, I hope to share what I think are some of the important wants and needs are as far as C++; issues that we can rally behind. I will also scan the Borland newsgroups for your takes and desires.
Be sure to check back here again soon for those thoughts!!! Also I encourage you to bookmark Dr.Bob's Programming Clinic for current insights regarding C++Builder, Delphi and other Borland products & happenings.
3 Comments:
Welcome to Blogland! You may never find your way out!
Deat Mr. Gustavson,
here I post, as a comment, my letter to the Borland Developer Network.
---
Velko Iltchev
Lecturer on “Compiler Construction” and “Objectoriented Programming”
Department of Computer Systems, Technical University Plovdiv
St. Petersburg blvd. 61a, 4002 Plovdiv, Bulgaria, Europe
Tel.: 00359-32-627544, Fax: 00359-32-629018, Mobile: 0898-410233
Email: iltchev@tu-plovdiv.bg
=====================================================
TO:
Borland Developer Network
email: cpp_open_letter@borland.com
SUBJECT: Open letter and other "good" news
Plovdiv, 27.05.2004
Dear Colleagues,
I am deeply disgusted from the news I receive in the last time from Borland.
I begin to ask myself: "Is that Borland anymore OR is that a branch of MicroSoft?"
I write on Borland products since 1987. In this year Borland released Turbo C ver. 1.0.
I began to write on C much earlier, but I did NOT like the Microsoft C compiler for MS-DOS.
I invested much time and money to go in depth into Borland C++ Builder and VCL.
I show this product to my students as the best example of object-oriented and component style of programming.
I recommend Borland products to my students and encourage them to use Borland products in their future work as young specialists.
BUT:
What I saw as Borland C++ BuilderX (at a first glance) was a text editor, which was able to call compilers written by other companies.
MOREOVER:
In your open letter from October 29, 2003 you wrote:
"2. Windows C++ Applications. If you are committed to building and deploying C++ applications for the Microsoft Windows platform only, Borland will recommend and encourage developers to build for the .NET framework using Managed C++. Borland is committed to supporting this path by providing a C++ compiler with Managed Extensions and integrating support for VCL for the .NET framework, which should provide an straightforward route for current C++Builder 6 developers using VCL to migrate their applications to the .NET platform with less effort."
HOW SHOULD I UNDERSTAND THIS?
My questions:
1. Why should I continue to invest time and money in Borland products? Who can give me the guarantee that Borland will NOT change its "Long Term Product Line Strategy" again?
2. How long will Borland exists as an independent company?
3. Should I continue to pledge my name as university professor, recommending Borland products to my students?
With best regards:
V. Iltchev
Dear Paul,
I'm always wondering why Borland doens'nt use the force of C/C++.
The Kylix idea was a clean idea, but only in C/C++,
you always have to look after the Delphi guys, and you will never have a real open system.
I also program Microcontroller systems, and I can tell you all "The world is written in C".
Only a clever unified platform is missing (even for Win/Linux).
Your BuilderX I looked a little, and then put it away as far away from my needs.
Why is Borland not using it's skills in IDE and usability tools ?
Why did Borland let MS come up with its similar #-Products (from your EX-head) ?
Why is Borland not able to supply even clean, protable Basic Libraries, like CLX ?
When Borlands roots will stay in Pascal, then the C#
will take you over fasten than the light of speed.
And you will never will gain from all UNIX C programers outside.
And you will miss the possible rise of Linux, if not even you will hinder it (as Kylix opened the possibility to have 1 development at two OS).
All these questions I will never get answered, because all the world gets silly and rushes after big MS, like the lemmings jump into the sea.
Not even a sign of life at BorCon, what a mess.
Bye
Post a Comment
<< Home