🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jul22.233425.15747@borland.com> pete@borland.com (Pete Becker) writes:

>In article <CAJy2x.H0D@feenix.metronet.com> jack@feenix.metronet.com (Jack Hudler) writes:
>>
>>Oh! And I suppose you're going to say that you don't with Borland OWL?
>>Whats the difference? You still have to learn something, and you'll learn
>>something thats probably dieing as we speak (OWL).

>	OWL is not dying. The next release will be vastly more powerful and
>easier to use.

>	-- Pete

So what?  For anyone interested in being marketable as a programmer,
what good is it?  Ultimately, to get hired as a programmer in the
Windows arena, one must know the Windows SDK.  Since you have to learn
the SDK anyway, why get sidetracked with a (possibly wonderful)
third-party development tool, when VC++ (MFC 2.0) builds upon what
you ostensibly should have already learned?

Not meant to be a flame--I own but never cracked the cellophane on
BC++ 3.1 w/App Frameworks.  Shortly after I ordered it, VC++ showed
up, as a continuing installment of the MS C subscription I seem to
have. Never felt compelled to use Borland...

As a consultant, one quickly learns to become familiar with the tools
one's customers require.  Nowadays, with WinNT on the horizon,
breaking from MS seems not to be such a good idea; this is ever
subject to change, of course.  For the moment, however, Win32s et al,
is the horse MY money is on, and MS tools are all I'd consider.
Whether or not BC++ is dying, I have no opinion, nor do I care.

dmm
-- 
_____
David M. Miller       |Internet: dmiller@Panix.Com |Home:  (212) 316-4389
Compuserve: 72676,327 |BIX:                 sigmac |Home FAX: "  662-0715