Borland C++Builder Revolt

florescent_beige writes "Developers using Borland's C++Builder RAD tool are in revolt. Borland apparently obsoleted this product one year ago. However, the promised migration path (to be described in a now infamous open letter) never materialized. In a last-ditch effort to convince Borland to support them, users have put together a letter justifying (and begging) for continued support."

Comments

Begging is not freedom.

[jbn-o]

Poster writes

[...] In a last-ditch effort to convince Borland to support them, users have put together a letter justifying (and begging) for continued support.

Slashdot places this story in the "fight-the-man dept.".

Asking or begging a proprietor to do what you want is not fighting anyone, it's acknowledging that you are not livin in freedom. Placing yourself in a dependant position by not choosing free software to do the job doesn't bode well for leveraging a free market to supply the desired changes or improvements. Ironically, all the customers the letter cites are capable of paying for the support they want. Perhaps these developers should put some money and/or time into getting someone to distribute a free software program that does what they want so they won't be in this position.

Re:Begging is not freedom.

[PickyH3D]

What in the hell are you talking about? Free software dies off just like proprietary software.

If the company (READ FOR MORONS: developers) do not feel like supporting the software, then THEY STOP.

What does the free market dictate? YOU GO SOMEWHERE ELSE (READ FOR MORONS: take your business somewhere else). Stop acting like you have a damn clue.

Whether you take your "business" to free software or not is your choice. THAT IS FREEDOM.

You damn hippies are just tools.

Re:Begging is not freedom.

[PickyH3D]

Actually, that scratch the install CD thing isn't always true. I scratched a development CD of a very old version of a piece of software (say, version 3 versus the current version 7) and I wanted the version 3, which I could not find anywhere. The company just gave me it.

Obviously that's a limited example, but the Open source example also assumes there is a recent mirror and that you are willing to do it. A lot of people actually have jobs, and do not have the time to redevelop/reverse engineer applications for a feature that just should be there, but that does not have to be there (one of those things that makes life a little bit easier).

Plus, have you looked at many OSS source code recently? I have, and most of them are very poorly documented, especially in terms of commented code (even Apache 2; I was looking at the AliasMatch code).

The beauty of OSS is that the option is available, but in way too many cases the time it takes to learn a crappy code base is not worth the effort. Look at the Blog implementation, WordPress. It's great if you want exactly what it has to offer. However, if you don't then you have to go searching for where functions are declared and track through the dependencies, not to mention the spaghetti code! I was able to get it to what I wanted, but that's one of those wonderful OSS things that everyone brags about and it is a web.

this is why open source rocks

[Anonymous Coward]

if a RAD tool is open source then people can put some time on making their RAD tool better and better. Borland here just puts a dead end to a product which seemed to have some followers. Not good for Borland, not good for Borland users. Now opening up the source seems like the right thing to do.

I agree Builder is not Open Source...

[rusty0101]

It's a proprietary development environment used by a large number of developers to create the type of software they wish to create.

I remember writing in Pascal, and paying for the Pro edition of Borland Pascal with Objects. It was a great environment for the level of development I was doing. It included a large block of source code for OWL which if you spent enough time tweeking, you could have even rebuilt the IDE out of, including the compiler and debugger.

I don't know if the Pro release of Builder C++ provides the same type of set of source code. If it does, then there is no real reason to force Borland to try to continue supporting the software. The 'Pro' or 'Enterprise' customers can review the code, modify it, and create patch files that can be distributed to other developers at the pro and enterprise levels.

So they won't be blessed by Borland. Like Borland has done a lot of other good for you this past year?

-Rusty

my impression of C++ Builder

[cpeterso]

I just started using Borland's C++ Builder 1.5 Mobile Edition for Symbian/Nokia mobile phone software. So far, it sucks. It can't perform incremental builds: changing one .cpp file requires a clean build! It can't use the standard Symbian/Nokia SDKs. You have to install Borland's special Symbian SDKs, which seem to be missing some library files. The IDE supposedly has a remote debugger, allowing you to debug code running on an actual phone (just like Microsoft's Embedded Visual C++), but none of my co-workers could get it to work. It just freezes.

I think there is a reason that Microsoft Visual C++ won out over Borland's C++ tools. :( Microsoft needs some REAL competition.

Re:my impression of C++ Builder

[fm6]

Thanks for making me feel better. You're talking about a product I would have worked on if I'd stayed at Borland. I was really looking forward to this one, because it was supposed to be Borland's first step towards an all-C++ replacement for C++Builder. (The current C++Builder relies mostly on Delphi-language libraries, and the language impedence gap was always painful to deal with.) The had some first-rate people working on it, and my job would have been to document the new libraries from the ground up. Fun challenging work for a serious API writer, and I've often kicked myself for walking away from it. But of course the project self-destructed, as Borland projects are wont to do.

I tried before to explain Borland's Dysfunctionality. Whatever the reason, it's pretty clear they're never going to live up their potential. Which potential is pretty great -- that's why people get so pissed when they screw up.

quite so Re:Begging is not freedom.

[samjam]

If Borland are being stinky, and poeople are starting to suffer from being "locked in" (even thought it was nice while it lasted) then its time to look at:

wxPython
and
Boa Constructor, a python IDE and RAD style designer. Its a bit harder than Delphi (or am I getting mentally stale) but at least its fully cross platform GUI and open source, so you get to increase your target market and never get locked in again.

No point in continuing with Delphi.net, it may only happen again in a few years when the fashions change.

I learned this lessen a few years ago when a nameless search engine salesman witheld some updates and we (Ananova/Orange) switched to the open source Xapian search engine and paid one of the original developers to do some more work on it for us. Xapian is now being trialed as the search engine behind gmane

Its the same lesson Richard Stallman learned years ago. Don't get locked in.

There's no need to learn that lesson twice. And, you may as well join the FSF while you are at it. You know it makes more sense than most political donations, and for less than the price of a night out each month! I got a copy of Lessigs "Free Culture" in the post today as part of my FSF membership.

Sam

Re:quite so Re:Begging is not freedom.

[fm6]

It's not a matter of lock-in. Actually, that concept has always worked against Borland, since their tools are always of the "road less travelled" variety -- the main road mainly being Microsoft "Visual" programming products. People who use Borland products don't do it because they have to, they do it because they're totally infatuated with the products. These C++Builder people can easily switch to Visual C++ -- but they'll hate having to do it.

i have used CBuilder

[floydman]

since it was version 3, all the way to CBuilder-6(and ofcorse i have used their Borland C compiler before the IDE).
I think it is one hell of a devlopment tool, what you do in visual studio in days, can take you hours in CBuilder. With all the drag & drop options, components, and third party objects that were available, it was an extremly easy to use tool.
Some drawbacks though were blotted executable, and runtime libraries issues, but they were only a nag and not a major show stopper.

Too bad they had to cut the support.

Personally i think its a very stupid move from their side, CBuilder was their number 1 product, and they are killing it???? That is a true example of shooting your self in the foot.

Re:i have used CBuilder

[floydman]

Forgot to metion though that it used to cost about 5 times as much as the whole Visual Studio package, which is a lot of money when u compare both of them.
And by the way, thats not the first time they do it, any one remember KYLIX??:)

Borland was great, at one time.

[statusbar]

I started with Borland back in the Turbo Pascal days. I did a ton and a half of work with Borland C++ V3 (with a ton of books!), and then Delphi and C++ Builder after that. Quality of their products has steadily declined. I believe that the 'top gun' at Borland was hired away by Microsoft. Everything has been buggy and problematic since.

One thing that I REALLY liked about Borland back then was their software license. Basically it said that you had the right to 'Use this software as you would a book'. Meaning that you are allowed to install it on multiple computers as long as only one person would be using it at a time - and it could be different people as well.

I lamented the loss of Borland's products 2 years ago. Now, mingw32 and the old trusty standby vc++6 are my windows tools of choice.

As a previous poster said: that is the problem with closed source applications. Sometimes you get burned like this. I was burned before when Borland C++ Builder upgrades didn't load old projects properly and other closed source widget libraries become incompatible.

--jeff++

Re:not verb

[mjc_w]

From dictionary.com:

obsolete

\Ob"so*lete\, v. i. To become obsolete; to go out of use. [R.] --Fitzed. Hall.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

wxPython and Boa Constructor

[turgid]

wxPython and Boa Constructor are all well and good, but how do they help C++ developers?

Perhaps Anjuta would be more use to them in conjuncion with gcc? Here are the features and here is the eye candy.

Products like C++ Builder are not only fancy IDEs and compilers, but they come with very rich class libraries. If someone has invested years of development time creating applications using these class libraries, thier discontinuation is a disaster if they are to continue to develop their application without rewriting it from scratch using different libraries, or in a whole new language environment.

Re:The top gun...

[seanyboy]

It's Anders Hejlsberg.

It's not just about visuals

[Kell_pt]

This whole problem has recently become incredibly relevant for me. We are starting a project, and I am in charge of deciding which development enviroment to use.
I started by trying JBuilder. I gave up. It's not that I don't like Java - but it ends up being too ecletic in its stubborness for not supporting things like properties and operator overloading - I know how to develop, I don't need a language that imposes limits, I want a language that is easy to write and read, and I'd rather type C++ than the whole verbosity of Java.
I tried Delphi, but again, it's syntax is aging. Don't get me wrong, it's not just about syntax, but if given the chance to develop in C++ or in Delphi, I'll pick the former.
Lastly, we decided to go with BC6. We didn't adhere to using CLX and decided to go with VCL, confident that at any time it would not be a hard issue to port it over, if need ever arised. I'm not so sure right now.

And it's not all about visuals. It's about things that Borland was innovative in, like BDE/dbExpress and the whole concept of linking databases to datasets and then to data-aware controls. It's the whole atmosphere of using a Borland product and having freedom of choice.

I do NOT want to use C#, even though I like the language. I simply refuse to step back 10 years and go back at programming for a single-platform enviroment. Some people say .NET is the future, but I can only assume that's out of ignorance, or a real commitment to MS platforms. And don't talk about Mono, it's an interesting project, but it's far from being a drop-in replacement for .NET at the moment, and we need solutions now.

So, real world choices for RAD enterprise-grade applications involving database access, complex forms, multi-platform, etc? Delphi, C++ or Java.

Java isn't really slow anymore, but the syntax is a disgrace. Why on earth would I want to write a.setCounter( a.getCounter() + 3 ) when Delphi has had for ages a mechanism of properties that allows me to write "a.counter += 3" - even C++ allows for similar freedom, with operator overloading (although not the same) (and no, JavaBeans aren't the answer).

I know, this post comes out as a collection of assorted gripes, mostly in an attempt to justify why I chose to commit to using Borland C++Builder 6. I believe in it, and Kylix. Where's that going? We have a very tight deadline (don't we all) and using Delphi or BC6 is the only viable chance to beat it. Syntax-wise Delphi feels like using VB (ergh) so to keep some sanity intact, BC comes out as the obvious choice. Uncertainity is deadly when it comes to starting projects and preparing for the future... and it's causing me a great deal of concern wether I'm digging myself, the team and the project into a hole in choosing BC6.

Re:It's not just about visuals

[Kell_pt]

I know how you feel. Personally I feel there's a distinction between trying to spare the programmer from writing boring code and thinking the programmer is a moron.

Java *limits* what you can do and ultimately, the structuring of your code. It forces you to write long sentences and code that doesn't really add anything to the program.

I've mentioned this article before, but I really believe it to show some very valid points and the way they approached things on C#.

Bear in mind that I am mostly a C and C++ person (well, among other 10), and I also believe there are different languages for different jobs. But for RAD and solid structuring, I am desperatly in need to find an alternative to C++, if only because it's getting harder to recruit talented people.

I feel sad, but Inprise or is it Borland...

[Fallen Andy]

...is not the Borland I remember. I knew this when
they took too long to release a Pascal for Windows.
Since it was their *core* product, clearly they weren't so bothered about capturing hearts and minds as they were in the old days.

OK. I can live with that. But trashing the C++/C community? Hmm. Why is it a problem to keep both streams (and gradually wean people across to C# builder?).

This is not the company we knew and loved years ago.

Nuff said. But there are tears in my eyes because
they were well admired by almost all of us for the things they did in the past.

Anders is now working for those excellent and perhaps too much maligned folk at Redmond (don't spit H2SO4 at me, they are kool sometimes), and I'd guess since PK isn't there it isn't really the
*same* company it was.

Just the name. But, on the other hand Novell is
much to my delight proving that the name still matters.

I for one mourn the passing of a group of people that we all admired...

RIP Borland.

(But, Frank can come and drink a beer here in Athens any day of the week).

Further study on alternatives

[Kell_pt]

This isn't directly related to BC++, but it's in line with my other post slightly above. It's related to looking for alternatives, in the current age of Java, .NET and Mono.

For the last 8 hours after my other post on this thread, I've been searching the net for information regarding C#, CIL, Mono, comparisons to Java (with usability in mind, not zealotism), etc. And one thing is for sure: .NET and CIL is good technology - I hate to admit it, but MS has something good there. It is not a surprise, as it comes a LOT from the same person that designed TorboPascal, Delphi and now C#. I recommend those interested to read an interview here and pay attention to the ideas he puts forth. It offers a lot of insight into a few things that are wrong with Java, and that most people will probably have felt.

Also, one interesting RAD project is here. .

I've also tryed to learn as much as I could from the state of Mono, its legal status... and I felt important to share that my view has changed slightly, it MIGHT become a player, and it might offer a cross-platform alternative to .NET. I also recommend the GoMono FAQ . There's a lot FUD regarding possible patent threats from Microsoft over Mono, but I believe that to be mostly out of misinformation and lack of knowledge at how it works. The idea of a common VM isn't new, Parrot for instance is just another one.

I'd be most interested in whatever other people might have to say about Java vs .NET/Mono, that comes from careful study and consideration not just hype. Approaches like CIL and Parrot make a lot of sense... where do you see them going?

Re:Borland dead? I don't think so.

[hh1000]

"or tell me about an alternative language I should learn."

Consider contributing to the Freepascal and Lazarus open source projects.

Re:Borland cannot be trusted

[NavySpy]

Let's clear up some of the FUD in your post, Mike.

Borland has not killed off Kylix. That is FUD. Kylix is "on hold" this year, but they did announce some open source initiatives at this years Borland Conference. Kylix isn't thriving at Borland, but it's FUD to say that it's been killed.

Borland /may/ kill off the VCL side of C++Builder. They have set Dec 15 as the deadline to announce whether C++Builder will become part of the BDS/Galileo IDE or not. If they miss that deadline, then we know the answer. But it is FUD to say that it has been killed.

CodeWright has been killed, yes, and incorporated into Galileo and Primetime IDE's.

Borland never made any promises about CF support in Delphi for .Net, and to say that they have is FUD. Borland very much wants to do this, but MS is dragging their feet. It's a limitation in Delphi, yes, but to portray it as broken promises is vicious FUD.

Delphi works fine on XP systems with SP2. What are you on about here?

Man, clearly all that baloney up took some work.