🚀 go-pugleaf

"Alexis R�os" <alexr@coqui.net> writes:

> Just want to make a statement. I don't want to cause flame here, just
> showing some facts. The only thing Borland should've said from the beginning
> is that JBuilder 2 supports JDK 1.1.7, not JDK 1.2 like the box, manuals and
> web site said.

But it _did_ support it in the sense that you could do JDK switching
to the JDK 1.2 beta that existed at the time of printing. Then Sun
changed parts of what 1.2 was, sop that it wasn't as easy
anymore. Personally, I'm glad for the lengths to which Borland _did_
go in order to compensate for Sun's changes.

It's a bit like owners of old C++ compilers wanting free upgrades
because C++ changed to include templates and the like.

> Many people that I know bought the product for the 1.2
> features, we really don't care anymore about 1.1.6 or 1.1.7 because is
> already deprecated,

Hardly: 1.1 is still _very_ usable, and a different product than
1.2. If it was deprecated, Sun wouldn't still be making new releases
of it, now would they?

> and we receive a handicapped product instead.  To give you an
> example about what is a good advertisement just check this page on
> Symantec.

Symantec have had their fair share of complaints in various newsgroups
as well. Just to point that out.

> Please read it.. not to compare the products just as a
> constructive customer service lesson..
> 
> http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/devtools.nsf/docid/1998112315523205

Well, with the 2.01x patch, JBuilder covers other aspects - that is,
visual design but not debugging. Also, unless I'm mistaken, VC 3.0 was
released much later than JBuilder 2, in my eyes that makes it _less_
impressive than JBuilder's support - for instance, debugging of 1.2
applications spawn jdb instead of using the debugger API. 

Perhaps it instead should be compared with the JDK 1-2/2.0-hosted
JBuilder 3, in which case it falls flat. AFAIK. :-)