BCB 6 Future

BCB 6 Future

Post by Oliver You » Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:34:08

I've just read on some newsgroups that Borland will stop development of
BCB. I can't belive it. Please, send me some links to some Borland articles
explaining this. I feel like someone from my family died. Will be there new
releases of BCB? One month ago I've started long term project with BCB 6.
What I should do?

BCB 6 Future

Post by Stepha » Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:42:02

from what I have read posted on these groups, don't count on it.

Microsoft wants the WIN32 API to go away,
but it will probably be around for a while.

I guess one can only answer that question by answering
how long is "long term" , and how well do you want
your app to conform to the latest & greatest version of windows?

check out the .NET faq at microsoft.com


BCB 6 Future

Post by Yahia El-Q » Thu, 27 Nov 2003 22:56:40

BCB in the current shape is "dead" - no more releases coming up.

There is a new product line called C++ Builder X ( = CBX ) - version 1 is
out, but without anything VCL specific...
Version 2 is coming within some months and will contain VCL and form
designer etc. - at least if one takes into account what was said here on the
NGs by TeamB and others...

CBX in the current version targets some cross-platform *** C++


BCB 6 Future

Post by Oliver You » Thu, 27 Nov 2003 23:10:06

I'm just downloading CBuilderX and I'll try it.

Btw, I don't wont to use Delphi, because I don't wont to type "type"
instead of "class" and "begin end" instead of "{}". However, I need VCL.

Best regards.

BCB 6 Future

Post by Lee Grisso » Fri, 28 Nov 2003 01:27:28

Minor correction: "type" and "class" are two different things in
Delphi. Classes, sets, enumerations all fall under the "type" section
of your unit.

BCB 6 Future

Post by Andrew Ryb » Fri, 28 Nov 2003 02:10:13

> I don't wont to type "type"

in Delphi you type "type" for "typedef", "class" for "class", "." for "->',
"record" for "union" and "structure".

BCB 6 Future

Post by Team » Fri, 28 Nov 2003 03:00:25

They already have.

http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ,1410,30279,00.html
http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ,1410,31277,00.html

Also, you could just read through the previous postings in this group, this
topic has been discussed exhausively for the past several months now.

No. A final patch - MAYBE - but definately no BCB7 will ever be released.
C++BuilderX, aka CBX, is the new C++ product from this point forward.

Continue to use BCB6. Otherwise re-write the code to be
compiler-independant so that you can then port the project to CBX. Note
that in its current form, CBX v1.0 is not targetting BCB users. That will
come in an upcoming release in the next few months, complete with VCL and
forms editing and such. But for now, there is no VCL at all in CBX. But ti
does ship with BCB6's compiler and linker, so it is possible to compile BCB6
projects from the CBX IDE, you just can't edit your VCL forms and such.


BCB 6 Future

Post by Jeff Wei » Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:13:47

Relax and carry on knowing that you will never have to pay to update
the development tool you used for your new project. Think of all
the money you'll save :)

Hope nobody develops a 'must have' VCL component that isn't
Delphi/C++Builder 6 compatible.

Trust that Windows will always support Win32.

Target managed C++, .NET and maybe someday, Mono.

Switch to Java.



BCB 6 Future

Post by No On » Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:13:51

Never trust Borland again.

BCB 6 Future

Post by Sebastian » Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:39:36

"No One" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > escribien el mensaje

>>>> What I should do? >> >> Never trust Borland again. >>
Mhh, in who we should trust?

BCB 6 Future

Post by No On » Sat, 29 Nov 2003 07:56:11

>>>>>> What I should do? >>>> >>>> Never trust Borland again. >>>> >> Mhh, in who we should trust?

As far as possible, no one (pun not intended - or is it?) -
but, to the extent you must trust someone to some degree,
Microsoft has been a lot less flighty, more responsive in
RESPONDING TO bug reports and bringing forth bug fixes, and
with a lot more commitment to C++ and their other products
(in general!), and I believe that will very likely continue
for some time.

BCB 6 Future

Post by Peter Agri » Sat, 29 Nov 2003 16:50:06

Microsoft is going .NET. C++ and .NET don't go together. C++/CLI, the new
managed C++ will maybe make the gap smaller but I don't think it will bridge
it. To me the efforts for standard compliance of MS seems nothing more than
a trap to get C++ developers on their managed C++.


BCB 6 Future

Post by Hendrik Sc » Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:26:29

I agree with some of this, but I don't agree
with your statement regarding MS' commitment
to C++. First, they needed years to finally
update their compiler to -- more or less --
std C++. Now (as Ronald Laermans told me in
an email) they do not plan to do the remaining
work to get VC8 fully conforming. And I'm not
talking about 'export' here. They plan to fix
showstoppers that don't have workarounds, but
nothing else. Their focus is on .NET again.


XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org

"Sometimes compilers are so much more reasonable than people."
Scott Meyers

BCB 6 Future

Post by Chris Uzda » Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:37:11

"Andrew Rybenkov" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:

So in delphi you can do this?

typedef int my_int1;
typedef int my_int2;

my_int1 m1 = 5;
my_int2 m2 = 10;

m1 = m2?

I thought the Delphi type system make unique types, not just type
aliases like C and C++ do.

That one shouldn't be a problem. :)

union is not like record, in that it does not remember its actual
type. There is no "tag" field. You have to keep that yourself off to
the side.

It has been since TP6.0 since I used pascal, so I admit to being
rusty on these issues, but a direct translation from Delphi->C++ will
require more than just a preprocessor to fix.

Chris (TeamB);

BCB 6 Future

Post by No On » Sun, 30 Nov 2003 03:21:17

I agree that in the past there have been periods when
they were less than reponsive. I am addressing the
present situation; they have a strong C++ proponent
on board and it shows in VS.NET 2003. I would have
to know more about what Ronald has said precisely,
but it sounds like what others have seized on when
statements came out that MS wasn't focused on
getting their C++ compiler 100.000% conformant to
the exclusion of other important features. I guess
I'm saying that, so far, I have been convinced that
they are focused "enough" on getting it compliant