🚀 go-pugleaf

Here's the scoop.

JBuilder allows you to select any JDK to have your code compiled against and run
from.  So from this point of view it is completely flexible.  As soon as Sun or someone
else comes out with a new JDK you can immediately point JBuilder to use it
for building your code and running it.

JBuilder itself is entirely written in Java.  So it must use a JDK (or at least a JRE) to
run from.  It only runs from the JDK that it ships with.  For JBuilder 4.0 this is Sun's
JDK1.3.  You cannot switch what JDK JBuilder uses to run itself.  This is because Borland
has tested JBuilder with that JDK and they want it to only run with that JDK so they
know it will run properly.

So my guess is that JBuilder does do what you want.  Note that the JBuilder Foundation version
(which is free) does not allow you to target a JDK.  You must purchase the professional or
enterprise edition for that feature.  I think they offer a trial edition with that feature turned on
though.  I have JBuilder 4.0 Professional and I have used the JDK switching feature.  It works
as advertised.

To select the JDK do this:
Select project->project properties
Click on the jdk button (this will be greyed out on the foundation version)
select from the list or click the new button to point JBuilder to a JDK that is installed on your system.

Hope that helps,
Bill

"Gilbert Baron" <gbaron@home.com> wrote in message news:EeJN5.28794$a7.665392@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> I find that Jbuilder suffers one of the same idiotic restrictions that is
> part of the IBM Visual Age, it forces you to use the INRISE version of the
> JDK as IBM forces you to use it's version.
> What were they thinking in not allowing you to select the SUN OR ANY OTHER
> version of the JDK,? Instead, you must have another space wasting JDK on
> your machine.
>
> I hope I am wrong here, I hope that I can select ANY JDK but I do not see
> how. Please someone, say it ain't so!
>
>
> --
> Gil Baron http://members.home.com/gbaron
> 44:04.925 N 92:30.758 W 1055'
> "Hierro candente, batir de repente"
>
>

Gilbert Baron wrote:

> > So my guess is that JBuilder does do what you want.  Note that the
> JBuilder Foundation version
> > (which is free) does not allow you to target a JDK.
> 
> This is bad news. I guess I can end my consideration of this IDE right now.
> Thanks for the information.

Ditto for me.   I am disappointed.  This is really an absurd limitation.
 
>   You must purchase the professional or
> 
> No way I can afford this for home use!

Or even office use.  No way can I justify spending a THOUSAND dollars on
a one-language tool, just to get a few hooks that they cleverly left out
of the free version.  For not much more, you can all of MS Visual
Studio, for heaven sakes!

Inprise: come out with an intermediate version of the product, with an
intermediate feature set, at an intermediate price.  

   Dave

The intermediate version is "Professional" which has a street price of
about $260 as a competitive upgrade.

Dave Stallard wrote:

> Or even office use.  No way can I justify spending a THOUSAND dollars on
> a one-language tool, just to get a few hooks that they cleverly left out
> of the free version.  For not much more, you can all of MS Visual
> Studio, for heaven sakes!
> 
> Inprise: come out with an intermediate version of the product, with an
> intermediate feature set, at an intermediate price.
> 
>    Dave

-- 
--------
Tom Almy
Fluence Technology Incorporated
8700 SW Creekside Place
Beaverton, OR 97008
(503) 672-8721

Tom Almy wrote:
> 
> The intermediate version is "Professional" which has a street price of
> about $260 as a competitive upgrade.

IF you are upgrading from Professional 3.5, the price is $249.95.   I'm
not. For a new user, the price is $999.  

I just looked more carefully, though, and saw there is an additional
price point of $449.95 if you are upgrading from any competing
product.   I presume Visual Cafe 3.0 qualifies?

That's still too high, IMHO.  But I could justify it, if the product is
truly excellent.

  Dave

The Borland site is more expensive than other vendors. Check, for instance,
http://www.provantage.com. 
Visual Cafe would qualify. (Basically, anything will qualify.)

Dave Stallard wrote:
> 
> Tom Almy wrote:
> >
> > The intermediate version is "Professional" which has a street price of
> > about $260 as a competitive upgrade.
> 
> IF you are upgrading from Professional 3.5, the price is $249.95.   I'm
> not. For a new user, the price is $999.
> 
> I just looked more carefully, though, and saw there is an additional
> price point of $449.95 if you are upgrading from any competing
> product.   I presume Visual Cafe 3.0 qualifies?
> 
> That's still too high, IMHO.  But I could justify it, if the product is
> truly excellent.
> 
>   Dave

-- 
--------
Tom Almy
Fluence Technology Incorporated
8700 SW Creekside Place
Beaverton, OR 97008
(503) 672-8721

Tom Almy wrote:
> 
> The Borland site is more expensive than other vendors. Check, for instance,
> http://www.provantage.com.
> Visual Cafe would qualify. (Basically, anything will qualify.)

Thanks for the info.  I didn't know you could get it cheaper from a
vendor other than the company itself.

  Dave

"Bill Darbie" <noSpam@noSpam.com> wrote in message
news:aGKN5.217$Bf7.170569216@news.frii.net...
> Here's the scoop.
>
> JBuilder allows you to select any JDK to have your code compiled against
and run
> from.  So from this point of view it is completely flexible.  As soon as
Sun or someone
> else comes out with a new JDK you can immediately point JBuilder to use it
> for building your code and running it.
>
> JBuilder itself is entirely written in Java.  So it must use a JDK (or at
least a JRE) to
> run from.  It only runs from the JDK that it ships with.  For JBuilder 4.0
this is Sun's
> JDK1.3.  You cannot switch what JDK JBuilder uses to run itself.  This is
because Borland
> has tested JBuilder with that JDK and they want it to only run with that
JDK so they
> know it will run properly.
>

Well this is strange. It makes you wonder about how consistent Java is. I
can somewhat understand it but it should require ONLY the JRE. The SUN FORTE
allows you to use any and it is in the JDK ... directory.  This means that
you are still wasting space although I grant with the low price and huge
size of today's hardfiles this is not a huge issue.

> So my guess is that JBuilder does do what you want.  Note that the
JBuilder Foundation version
> (which is free) does not allow you to target a JDK.  You must purchase the
professional or
> enterprise edition for that feature.  I think they offer a trial edition
with that feature turned on
> though.  I have JBuilder 4.0 Professional and I have used the JDK
switching feature.  It works
> as advertised.
>
> To select the JDK do this:
> Select project->project properties
> Click on the jdk button (this will be greyed out on the foundation
version)
> select from the list or click the new button to point JBuilder to a JDK
that is installed on your system.
>

I am glad this feature exists. I hope it means you could then delete the JDK
part of the download from the Jbuilder directory?

> Hope that helps,
> Bill
>
> "Gilbert Baron" <gbaron@home.com> wrote in message
news:EeJN5.28794$a7.665392@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > I find that Jbuilder suffers one of the same idiotic restrictions that
is
> > part of the IBM Visual Age, it forces you to use the INRISE version of
the
> > JDK as IBM forces you to use it's version.
> > What were they thinking in not allowing you to select the SUN OR ANY
OTHER
> > version of the JDK,? Instead, you must have another space wasting JDK on
> > your machine.
> >
> > I hope I am wrong here, I hope that I can select ANY JDK but I do not
see
> > how. Please someone, say it ain't so!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gil Baron http://members.home.com/gbaron
> > 44:04.925 N 92:30.758 W 1055'
> > "Hierro candente, batir de repente"
> >
> >
>
>

"Bill Darbie" <noSpam@noSpam.com> wrote in message
news:aGKN5.217$Bf7.170569216@news.frii.net...
> Here's the scoop.
>
> JBuilder allows you to select any JDK to have your code compiled against
and run
> from.  So from this point of view it is completely flexible.  As soon as
Sun or someone
> else comes out with a new JDK you can immediately point JBuilder to use it
> for building your code and running it.
>
> JBuilder itself is entirely written in Java.  So it must use a JDK (or at
least a JRE) to
> run from.  It only runs from the JDK that it ships with.  For JBuilder 4.0
this is Sun's
> JDK1.3.  You cannot switch what JDK JBuilder uses to run itself.  This is
because Borland
> has tested JBuilder with that JDK and they want it to only run with that
JDK so they
> know it will run properly.
>
> So my guess is that JBuilder does do what you want.  Note that the
JBuilder Foundation version
> (which is free) does not allow you to target a JDK.

This is bad news. I guess I can end my consideration of this IDE right now.
Thanks for the information.


  You must purchase the professional or

No way I can afford this for home use!

> enterprise edition for that feature.  I think they offer a trial edition
with that feature turned on
> though.  I have JBuilder 4.0 Professional and I have used the JDK
switching feature.  It works
> as advertised.
>
> To select the JDK do this:
> Select project->project properties
> Click on the jdk button (this will be greyed out on the foundation
version)
> select from the list or click the new button to point JBuilder to a JDK
that is installed on your system.
>
> Hope that helps,
> Bill
>
> "Gilbert Baron" <gbaron@home.com> wrote in message
news:EeJN5.28794$a7.665392@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > I find that Jbuilder suffers one of the same idiotic restrictions that
is
> > part of the IBM Visual Age, it forces you to use the INRISE version of
the
> > JDK as IBM forces you to use it's version.
> > What were they thinking in not allowing you to select the SUN OR ANY
OTHER
> > version of the JDK,? Instead, you must have another space wasting JDK on
> > your machine.
> >
> > I hope I am wrong here, I hope that I can select ANY JDK but I do not
see
> > how. Please someone, say it ain't so!
> >
> >
> > --
> > Gil Baron http://members.home.com/gbaron
> > 44:04.925 N 92:30.758 W 1055'
> > "Hierro candente, batir de repente"
> >
> >
>
>

Still WAY too much when Forte is Free!

"Tom Almy" <toma@fluence.com> wrote in message
news:3A083DF2.9A2A69AE@fluence.com...
> The intermediate version is "Professional" which has a street price of
> about $260 as a competitive upgrade.
>
> Dave Stallard wrote:
>
> > Or even office use.  No way can I justify spending a THOUSAND dollars on
> > a one-language tool, just to get a few hooks that they cleverly left out
> > of the free version.  For not much more, you can all of MS Visual
> > Studio, for heaven sakes!
> >
> > Inprise: come out with an intermediate version of the product, with an
> > intermediate feature set, at an intermediate price.
> >
> >    Dave
>
> --
> --------
> Tom Almy
> Fluence Technology Incorporated
> 8700 SW Creekside Place
> Beaverton, OR 97008
> (503) 672-8721

"Gilbert Baron" <gbaron@home.com> writes:

> I find that Jbuilder suffers one of the same idiotic restrictions that is
> part of the IBM Visual Age, it forces you to use the INRISE version of the
> JDK as IBM forces you to use it's version.

Which version of JBuilder are you talking about? In JBuilder 2.0 you
needed their 1.1.6 for debugging, but could use any other for running
(because the debugger API wasn't finished). 

However, later releases (3.5, 4.0) _are_ Java applications, and do
ship with their own JVMs, but you can easily tell JBuilder to use a
different install, in the config files. (But 3.5 has problems running
under 1.3 since Borland coded around a Swing bug in 1.2.2).

> I hope I am wrong here, I hope that I can select ANY JDK but I do not see
> how. Please someone, say it ain't so!

You can select any that uses Sun's tool name standard, it seems. (If
you weant to run using Microsoft's, you need to add jview/wjview as a
tool.)

-- 
  Tor Iver Wilhelmsen                              <toriw@chello.no>
Thought of the day: A follow-up article stating that an article
 was off-topic, is itself off-topic.

BUT not unless you are spending 1000 bucks to get the professional version
or whatever. The foundation one conveniently (to sell more I suppose)
disabled.

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <toriw@chello.no> wrote in message
news:wkvgtsme29.fsf@mail.multinett.no...
> "Gilbert Baron" <gbaron@home.com> writes:
>
> > I find that Jbuilder suffers one of the same idiotic restrictions that
is
> > part of the IBM Visual Age, it forces you to use the INRISE version of
the
> > JDK as IBM forces you to use it's version.
>
> Which version of JBuilder are you talking about? In JBuilder 2.0 you
> needed their 1.1.6 for debugging, but could use any other for running
> (because the debugger API wasn't finished).
>
> However, later releases (3.5, 4.0) _are_ Java applications, and do
> ship with their own JVMs, but you can easily tell JBuilder to use a
> different install, in the config files. (But 3.5 has problems running
> under 1.3 since Borland coded around a Swing bug in 1.2.2).
>
> > I hope I am wrong here, I hope that I can select ANY JDK but I do not
see
> > how. Please someone, say it ain't so!
>
> You can select any that uses Sun's tool name standard, it seems. (If
> you weant to run using Microsoft's, you need to add jview/wjview as a
> tool.)
>
> --
>   Tor Iver Wilhelmsen                              <toriw@chello.no>
> Thought of the day: A follow-up article stating that an article
>  was off-topic, is itself off-topic.