🚀 go-pugleaf

Eelke <e.klein@remove.mplussoftware.nl> wrote:
>For 
>instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1 
>failure for 2006).

What about the "Improved Bosst support" stated in the BCB2007 
datasheet?

Vaclav

Vaclav Cechura schreef:
> I would like to ask people who already upgraded from BCB2006
> to BCB2007 to share their reasons for the upgrade and if the 
> upgrade satisfied this reasons?

It might be very interesting to know why people didn't upgrade. For 
instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1 
failure for 2006).

Eelke

In article <473329fc$1@newsgroups.borland.com>,
 "Vaclav Cechura" <n@s.p> wrote:

> What about the "Improved Bosst support" stated in the BCB2007 
> datasheet?

   I did at one time list the places where we improved, and at the same 
time, I listed the places where we had regressions. Most of those 
regressions were fixed by update 3, but a couple still remain. I really 
did mean to blog about it...
-- 
David Dean (CodeGear)
Lead C++ QA Engineer

In article <4733246f$1@newsgroups.borland.com>,
 Eelke <e.klein@remove.mplussoftware.nl> wrote:

> It might be very interesting to know why people didn't upgrade. For 
> instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1 
> failure for 2006).

   Which version of boost? In my testing of 1.34, variant has no 
regressions.
-- 
David Dean (CodeGear)
Lead C++ QA Engineer

In article <david.dean.no-3A4BBF.17260708112007@nothing.attdns.com>,
 "David Dean [CodeGear]" <david.dean.no@spam.codegear.com> wrote:

> > It might be very interesting to know why people didn't upgrade. For 
> > instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1 
> > failure for 2006).
> 
>    Which version of boost? In my testing of 1.34, variant has no 
> regressions.

   (Although I do show 4 failures for 5.6.4, 5.8.2, and 5.9.2)
-- 
David Dean (CodeGear)
Lead C++ QA Engineer

Leo Siefert <lIHATESPAMsiefert@senate.michigan.gov> wrote:
>For me the biggest reason is the improvements in the IDE 
>stability and speed. 

That would be a reason for me too.

>Another reason that is very significant for me is the fact that I like
>the changes I have seen in Borland/CodeGear over the past couple of
>years and I really want to give them some support and to demonstrate
>that these changes affect their bottom line. 

This is what I would also like to do, but the fact that I 
upgraded to BCB2006 Enterprise from BCB6 Professional in the 
end of the year 2006 may be an agrument against an upgrade this
year.

Vaclav

For me the biggest reason is the improvements in the IDE stability and
speed. Build time is _much_ faster than in BDS2006 and there is also a
quite noticeable improvement in Code Insight functions - now the only
one that I keep set to manual is Tooltip Symbol Insight. In addition,
many day-to-day irritations from BDS are now gone and the general
experience of programming is more pleasant.

Another reason that is very significant for me is the fact that I like
the changes I have seen in Borland/CodeGear over the past couple of
years and I really want to give them some support and to demonstrate
that these changes affect their bottom line. It seems that they are
now both more forthcoming with their own plans for the products and
more willing to listen to their customers than in the past.

 - Leo