The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Randall Pa » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 04:45:13


t is important to keep in mind why developers need to know about Borland's plans.

1) Some developers have to make their own decisions about what tools to use and do
not want to start new multi-year projects on tools that are not going to be improved
much, if at all.

2) Some of us have to sell management. If Borland doesn't provide us with enough
information to sell our own management then we will be forced to use other tools and
we view the alternatives as less appealing. There are guys posting here who know
that they are going to be pushed off BCB at some point in the coming months. Others
already have been and are gone.

3) If Borland is really going to do something we want them to do and they would
reveal this information then we could save a huge amount of effort involved in
ranting or sending them messages arguing for what we want them to do.
If a problem is going to be solved we can move on to other problems, of which
there is no shortage given the line of work we all are in.

In other product lines Borland recognizes this need for advance information and
supplies it. Borland doesn't supply this information for BCB in spite of the fact
that the need on the part of the average BCB user for this information is even
greater than that for the average Delphi or JBuilder user. The reasons for that
greater need are:

4) BCB has suffered from serious regression bugs in its last couple of releases and
some of those bugs were never fixed.

5) BCB is behind in versions as compared to Delphi. Borland's commitment to BCB is
obviously much much weaker. Our ability to assure our own managements of Borland's
commitment is weak at best.

6) BCB is lagging in C++ standards compliance.

7) BCB Has long-standing and as yet unfixed problems that predate the regression bugs.

At this point BCB users are being given hints that some positive news about BCB will
be forthcoming. Yet BCB users continue to suffer from an information deficit as
compared to other Borland product users. One issue that Borland apparently does not
sufficiently appreciate about its BCB users is the issue of trust. Consider the
reasons why:

8) We know BCB is less important to Borland than Delphi or JBuilder so we think
Borland could walk away from its unofficial hints for a new version unless it makes a
very public commitment to a new version.

9) BCB has had previous releases that did not address serious problems and instead
introduced new problems. Well, even if BCB is going to be revved to v9 we have very
credible reasons to fear that even then existing serious bugs may not be fixed and
new ones may even show up and then not be fixed.

10) Borland promised its C++ users in an open letter about its C++ plans that it
heard loud and clear the need for better support of a C++ product. BCBX was released.
It had some serious IDE bugs that caused many to try it and give up on it. Many
months have passed and those IDE bugs (eg in BOE have gone unfixed. So when Borland
says that it has heard the message about the need for better quality and support that
hasn't translated into bug fixes.

I only hope that the management turn-over in Borland has not been so high that what I
said above would be news to some Borland managers who are in the decision-making
chain of command for BCB and BCBX.

My message to Borland is that your C++ developer users and their managers have plenty
of reasons not
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Nux » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:21:45

agree 100%... The same applies to Kylix3 (C++)

Randall Parker wrote:

 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Alisdair M » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:33:46


[A lot of well-made points]

Nothng particularly there to disagree with, except I hope this *is*
news to the current senior management. I have a hard time finding any
other explaination for such an extended delay.

All I can give as feedback is you are sending this 'letter' to the
wrong audience. I do not believe the people who can act on it read
these fora. Have you considered sending it directly to Borland
themselves?

AlisdairM(TeamB)
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Kenneth de » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:46:55


You could have expressed your agreement without reposting the whole
message just to add one sentence.

And top-posted...

--
Ken
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
* this is not a sig *
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Sten Larss » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 05:54:45


have plenty
where a
there is no
potential
of BCBX.

This translates into other products from Borland aswell... the fact that
Borland is and has been mishandling BCB, really lowers my confidence for
Borland in general. I'm long time user of CodeWright... which doesn't make
things better.

/sten
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Randall Pa » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:01:45

Alisdair,

I wrote it partly as an explanation to those who defend Borland's behavior or who
criticise Borland's critics. As for changing the minds of Borland's management: I'm
fairly discouraged at this point.

However, what the heck, hope springs eternal. Where ought I send it?
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Alisdair M » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:30:01


I'll risk sending you to XXXX@XXXXX.COM as given in the
last open letter. I believe this address automatically forwards to
John Ray Thomas, the product manager for BCB/BCBX, and it might look
good to be coming through the channels Borland created (the Open
Letter) if we are looking for more feedback!
In one sense this is going to the wrong person, I believe JRT already
knowns Borland need to get more info out! But every extra piece of
ammunition we can give him trying to press the case helps...
AlisdairM (TeamB)
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Gillmer J. » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:49:11


I think that's the best idea. Like you said, that won't go directly to
the right person/persons, but assuming J.R. knows how to work a printer
or click the forward button in his email program :-), I think he can get
the letter wherever it needs to go. I don't really feel comfortable
posting the email addresses of random Borland executives that I've never
met.

--
Gillmer J. Derge [TeamB]
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Gord » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:59:04

Your statement below is exactly what I have said on several different occasions. Borland's
silence *does* affect the future of BCB.


[snip]
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Harold How » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 12:54:25


> I'm long time user of CodeWright... which doesn't make

What? You have some kind of opposition to "exciting technical
synergies?" How can you be against that?

H^2
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Nux » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 15:24:44

So what! It is as simple as that: Randall is 100% right! and I think
it applies to Kylix3...
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by J Alexande » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 16:39:01

"Randall Parker" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > wrote in

...
that what I
decision-making

I'm afraid it's not a news for Borland top management. I can't imagine them
being so incompetent. I can't help but think that Borland intentionally
moves in the direction of killing or significantly simplifying its C++
offers. In which case it would be only understandable their reluctance to
speak on this topic. They probably want us to go away.

J

---------------------------------------------------
Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we've removed their
only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of people that these liberties
are the gifts of God? - Thomas Jeffesrson
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Sten Larss » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 17:29:59


Well - they discontinued CodeWright....

/sten
---
For direct email, remove _ and X.
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Kenneth de » Thu, 17 Jun 2004 19:26:31


LOL!

--
Ken
http://www.yqcomputer.com/
* this is not a sig *
 
 
 

The Basics On the argument about Borland's silence on BCB

Post by Daniel Dar » Fri, 18 Jun 2004 01:07:00


If the relevant people at Borland don't even take the time to skim their own
hosted newsgroups, how do they earn their salaries?

I expect a manager to read what people are saying, to keep track of their
newsgroups, some other relevant newsgroups, Joel On Software, the CUJ...
weekly or at least a couple times a month, not to just sit there waiting
until a magical email with fresh ideas comes in their Inbox.

--
Daniel