A question regarding Open Letter

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Bren » Wed, 20 Aug 2003 08:07:16


I see a lot of euphoria about Borland writing a new version of BCB that does
not require compiler extensions. Could someone please enlighten me as to
whether compiler extensions are different to language extensions because I
am quite happy to live with the language extensions __property and
__published to name just a few.

Another question, I will be upgrading my version of BCB (probably to the new
version 7). Will the VCL still be supported? Will the current set of Indy
components work with the new version of BCB (sorry if it is a stupid
question, I dont have Indy).

That's all I have for now.

thanks,

Brent
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Team » Wed, 20 Aug 2003 11:04:02


Language extension = compiler extension

They are one and the same thing. Compiler extensions to provide custom
parsing&compiling for compiler-specific extensions to the language.

And for what you just said - you'd be happy living with using __property and
__published - the point is that such extensions are *going away* in the new
version. The new framework will not include the use of any proprietary
language extensions at all. This is so code can be written to be compiled
under any compiler you want.


There is no word on that yet.


That will depend on whether the VCL is supported or not.


Gambit


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system ( http://www.yqcomputer.com/ ).
Version: 6.0.510 / Virus Database: 307 - Release Date: 8/14/03

 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Frederik S » Wed, 20 Aug 2003 22:08:00


If not, I doubt there will be many people upgrading from BCB 6.
That would be about the stupidest thing that Borland could do, IMO.

Frederik.
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Ed Mulroy » Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:47:13

The reply I received when asking why BCB created components could not be
made usable with Delphi was there was no version of the C++ Builder runtime
library available with Delphi so the C/C++ parts would not link or work.

. Ed
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Adam Verst » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:12:20


<a question>

I've another question... Borland is sending out emails advertising delphi 8
and saying that it is scheduled for release 'near the end of the year'.

Has anyone got a similar email for builder?
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Edward Die » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 03:29:43

d Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:

Why couldn't the C++ Builder run-time be distributed with Delphi just like
any other run-time library. It is just another DLL. Developer's who create
their own applications with C++ builder, and use the dynamic RTL, must
distribute the C++ Builder run-time with their products. Surely distributing
the proper C++ Builder DLLs, LIBs, and BPLs to Delphi developers in order to
use C++ Builder components, couldn't have been all that difficult. I am sure
that you know that DLLs, LIBs and BPLs are not generic to any one language
but are general solutions.

It is hard for me to believe that Borland could not have added linkage to
the C++ Builder VCL BPL, BPI, LIB libraries in Delphi if they truly wanted
to. They wouldn't have needed to link directly from Delphi to the C++ RTLs
since only the C++ Builder libs need that linkage. I am not saying that
would have been easy but I can't imagine, if a C++ Builder developer only
used the C++ equivalent of OP constructs and native types in their public
and protected interfaces, that it could not have been done.

This would have placed no language burden on OP itself, since of course
thing like templates, containers, and other C++ only constructs would be
forbidden in the VCL public and protected interfaces in such a situation. I
believe many C++ developers would have accepted such limitations knowing
that in their own internal code they could have still used the full power of
C++. In my own components I use AnsiString for all public and protected
interfaces even though I use std::string everywhere else in my code. It's
pretty much a no brainer to use OP-style constructs when talking to the VCL
and translating back and forth to the richer C++ otherwise.

I believe Borland's real reason is that they just don't see the advantage of
components developed by C++ programmers. They continue to essentially think
of the VCL as a Delphi/OP party where C++ programmers are tolerated as long
as they sit in the corner, keep their mouth shut, and behave.

When I reported a bug, which still exists, which doesn't allow a C++
programmer to create a component which is derived from a particular VCL
Delphi database component, I was essentially ignored by Borland on these
NGs. Only when I did enough posting on various NGs about it did I get back a
response acknowledging the problem, but of course no fix was forthcoming
then or now. Evidently I didn't sit in my corner, keep quiet, and behave as
I was supposed to do <g>. It's simply not important enough for Borland to
consider C++ programmers as VCL component developers to warrant even a
passing interest for all these years in making the VCL truly interoperable
between Delphi and C++ Builder.



 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Chris Uzda » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 05:12:42

"Edward Diener" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


I can understand your frustration, as I usually agree with you. But in
this case I don't. At least not entirely.

C++ users have wanted a C++ RAD library for a long timed, and not wear
the "Delphi handcuffs" while writing code. Looks like they will get it.

C++ users have wanted better language implementation. They will get
that too.

C++ users want better code generation and optimizations. They will
get that too.

C++ users want a better project manager. They will get that too.

C++ users want more patches and general support. This one is harder
to quantify, but it "sounds" like they recognize this and will be
making efforts to be better here.


Borland can't change the past, but they can change the future, and it
seems that they are going toward what the C++ community has always
wanted. They probably won't please everybody, since that's
impossible, but let's give some credit for working in the right
direction.

--
Chris(TeamB);
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Edward Die » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:26:26


If Borland truly addresses C++ Builder, recognizes the importance of C++ and
their implementation, creates a better implementation and pays attention and
fixes bugs, I will be happy with the product. But nothing I have seen on
Borland's web site, outside of the promises made in that Open Letter which
generated the endless speculation and surmises in the original thread, leads
me to believe it. I have heard all these "promises" before from Borland many
times in the past and each time they failed to deliver. Nearly everything on
their web site still touts everything but C++ Builder. I have still not seen
or heard one person on Borland's technical team, in all the years which C++
Builder has existed, who cares for C++ and is active in the C++ community
and takes part in discussion about C++ in any of these NGs. They are all
essentially OP programmers who begrudgingly look and address C++ out of
duress. Until Borland itself changes, and has leaders who care about the C++
programming language, I believe that any C++ implementation, no matter what
is promised, will not be second-rate..
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Chris Uzda » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 08:44:03

"Edward Diener" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM > writes:


If you're willing to sign that NDA you can join the field test and not
have to take anyone's word for it. :) But you've already announced
an aversion to the NDA, so you'll have to just take their word on it.


Well, not entirely, but I know what you mean.


A few have momentarily appeared. I'm pretty sure there is more
lurking by them than some would think.


Not all of them! But this impression does come through. I think that
impression will change after the official release of their new
compiler.


Well, they're doing a "shake up" of their product now, breathing all
kinds of new life into it. I guess it's a wait-and-see situation for
the non believers, but I'm confident that they're going in the right
direction.

--
Chris(TeamB);
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by aphrae » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 10:06:24

In article <3f42b21e$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >,


This is an unfair characterization; i'm essentially a c++ programmer who
begrudgingly looks at and addresses OP.

Don't tell anyone.

:)
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by David B. H » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 16:36:28


Do you feel like John the Baptist proclaiming the imminent coming
of Jesus to a crowd of skeptics who have already seen 20 of them
come and go? ;>

Dave
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Andrue Cop » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:55:28

Edward Diener,


I did. I forget his name but anyway he was working out his notice period at
the time :)
Andrue Cope
[Bicester, UK]
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Andrue Cop » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 17:55:28

Remy Lebeau (TeamB),


Well those parts that work will work fine.

The Integrated Translation Environment will still be broken, I'll still get
the same file appearing in two independant editor buffers, I'll still have
Goto Declaration looking in the wrong directory path and Code Insight refusing
to work half the time for no good reason.

IOW all the bugs currently reported for BCB6 will still be plaguing us.
Andrue Cope
[Bicester, UK]
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Russell Hi » Thu, 21 Aug 2003 18:57:39


And he sent me early versions of the de *** patches for BCB3 or 4
(can't remember which) because the shipped version crashed when
debugging multiple threads.

Ah, those were the days :)

Cheers

Russell
 
 
 

A question regarding Open Letter

Post by Frederik S » Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:51:00


Well, they might start with a last service pack for BCB 6 that
finally fixes the remaining issues in QC. That would be better
than yet another new product with undoubtedly its own share of
bugs. What would you prefer:

1. Buying a new version with the "promise" that everything will
be better.

2. Getting a service pack that fixes the most blatant problems
with the version that you've already purchased for $$$$$.

Frederik.