There are no less concern over these years, and the release of each new product is always concerned. However, this time CBX1 is not seen in addition to the so-called cross platform. For a programmer, the tool is used to solve the problem. If it does not design to solve the problem very well, just for the so-called advanced characteristics, no need, not to mention it, there is no better A condition.
Even the program framework has someone else, why bother to do a compiler, I have an idea to Borland, the compiler will change the GCC, the editor will change Eclipse, version control will change CVS, ..... .., forget it, nothing, standing next to Hacker's Hacker to do. (This is a feeling, hate iron is not a steel).
I think it is a bit sad. I have been in my heart in my heart in the past two years. Isn't it to mix with Borland tool chain, and the tool chain of M $ is. This trial is really a bit of this idea.
In the past two days, I touched the MFC, which used it to always find the VCL. For example, UTF8 to ANSISTRING's conversion has to use API, no VCL is convenient. There are also many of this small-featured API in the VCL, which makes you feel more about solving application issues rather than system or semi-systemic issues.
I don't know if CBX2 or CBX3 can have a new program framework. After you can support .Net, you will take into account cross-platform things. The CLX is a failure story, why do you have to repeat?
Solving a cross-platform task should not be C , it is more impossible to solve it through a tool for a company. Java is currently more hope to do this, but I have to solve it very thoroughly. I am not very likely.
Moreover, Java is a binary solution, and CBX1 is just a solving concept of the source code, I really feel that I use a wrong language to do a more wrong thing.
Imagine that using the source code to solve cross-platform, it is necessary to join a lot of judgment or to do abstraction and limit the use of many system features, and running efficiency will drop a lot, or to join a lot of compilation conditions macro, code It will become complicated, and the reading is hard, readability is poor. I think this is a big problem.
If you have emphasized the efficiency, you don't have to use Borland tools. After all, OS and CPU are not Borland, you may use MS and Intel's compiler. Therefore, the reason I use Borland's tool is that it can speed up my development schedule, and the code generated under the VCL frame has good readability (at least I feel better than the MFC framework).
