🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan20.140136.8695@cci632.cci.com> rom@cci632.cci.com (Rudynell S. Millian) writes:

   >
   >  It is true that there are no application frameworks (i.e. OWL) with
   >the first release.  There certainly is full RTL, BIDS, etc. support.
   >

|	   WHAT?! No application frameworks?! It has taken Borland this long
|   to release this thing, and now you are telling me it is not going to have
|   an application framework? How many people did Mr. Kahn have working on this
|   thing, two? The BC++ product has been in development for almost three years,

|   and all Borland has come up with is a "robust" user interface.


You misunderstood my statement.  I was referring to the compiler front end, 
that which parses your source code.  I was NOT referring to user interfaces to
our tools.

Also, if you knew the number of resources we had, you'd be absolutely amazed
as to how we can develop and deliver any products, never mind the high quality
level we do maintain for our DOS, Windows, and soon OS/2 and Win32, compilers. 
Understaffed is an understatement.


   >
   >> my advice: if you are waiting for borland c++ for os/2, you might be better
   >> advised to start looking elsewhere. this product is a joke, and in bad taste.
   >

|	   I second this advice! If there is no application framework from 
|   Borland then what is the point in buying the thing? Why pay hundreds of
|   dollars to Borland for something that is essentially going to be gcc++ with
|   a pretty PM Interface?


Borland is supplying container class libraries, which is part of the framework.
As far as PM interface classes go, Borland can't solve all of the development
world's problems.  This is a first generation product.  If you remember,
Borland did not have a framework for Windows until Borland C++ 3.0, 9 months
after their first generation Windows product, Borland C++ 2.0.  The cold hard
fact, is that you are going to have to wait and rely on third party libraries
to supply PM interface abstractions.

As far as a "pretty PM interface" goes, you obviously have not had the joy of
debugging a C++ program with gdb.  Any graphical interface is an improvement
over the line oriented nature of gdb.  And although you could go and get
emacs and port it to OS/2, you will not be able to approach the level of
tool integration that the Borland C++ for OS/2 IDE possesses.


|	   It is just too bad Borland doesn't take OS/2 seriously. Here is an 
|   opportunity for Borland to set a standard and run away with the market, and 
|   they are going to blow it!


Au contraire, Borland takes this product very seriously.  How in the world do
you think Borland is going to "blow it?"  You must be careful about such
blanket statements.  How can you criticize that which you have not used nor
seen?!


Chris