I want to write this article for a long time, but I have been too busy, and there is no time to express my idea to Borland. Today I have to write something to express, because I can't endure Borland's indifference to the majority of Borland enthusiasts. The content to talk about is only a personal point of view. If you unfortunately sinned the hardcore Borland fan, I will pay you first.
Said, I am also a loyal borland fan, like Borland's reason, like many other fans - from the start of learning programming is the use of Borland products, such as Turboc2. To now, all of Borland's products I have used, whether it is a time TC2, or declined BC4; whether it is an OWL that is competing with MFC, or now a popular VCL, I can say it. One or two, because of these historical love, I have always been a unique momentum of Borland's product. Since I have exposed to CPPBuilder, I firmly determined my choice of Borland's determination, but now I started to hesitate.
BCB's programmers have an uncomfortable pain-BCB programmer, really better than other programmers are easy to find jobs (such as VC, Delphi, etc.), I am the Moderator of the BCB sector, often see BCB enthusiasts in the version Message finding work, or confirming to find a difficulty of finding work, I see these posts that have the provisions of the forum management, I really can't bear to delete, I deeply understand the hardships and difficulties of BCB programmers to find work, so many times these I don't delete the post, why do you have this situation? Is BCB not as DELPHI or VC? Of course, BCB is definitely a great development tool, VC, Delphi can do BCB can do, and it may be better; Is the programmer using BCBs? Of course, the BCB programmer has many other programmers, because the master of BCB may be a senior talent that is familiar with VC, Delphi, especially Delphi / VCL, can be said to be BCB masters, Delphi is absolute not bad. But why still don't work? The reason is that the company's technical accumulation, once a company selects a development tool, there is a technological accumulation on this tool, making this company difficult to choose another development tool. Regardless of how good, retraining, learning, and accumulation spending more than the value of the high productivity of the choice of new tools, many companies will not easily adventurize new technologies and new development tools. There are VCs that Microsoft, which are already dominated in C , also have Delphi and VB in RAD, and BCB competes in a two-difficult situation, so BCB programmers are not easy to find a job.
Ben years, because Borland continued to strengthen in BCB, coupled with BCB's original advanced design, it has gradually occupied some markets, and I also saw some companies began to recruit BCB programmers, and finally, the great efforts of BCBER did not have a white fee. However, this good start, maybe immediately stop.
CPPBUILDERX (hereinafter referred to as BCBX), Borland is about to release the next-generation C development tool, is said to renote the development framework with C to replace VCL written by PASCAL, provide cross-platform, cross-compile, 100% support C standards and other advanced characteristic. Regardless of whether these features are advanced, I will notice that Borland has noticed the above problems, new frameworks, new development environments must bring a new round of learning, and how will companies accumulated BCB development technology? I remember that the last time Li Wei said in the 9CBS chat activity "" (BCBX) Borland will take into account BCB programmers to the greatest extent, the brain fantasy BCBX is like this: Keep the IDE does not change, put the VCL all C implementation, strengthen Compatibility of C standards. But when I heard that BCBX will use the 3RD WXWindow Frame library and tried the BCBX of the beta, I found that the so-called next-generation C development tool is too far from what I expect, and the compatibility is definitely not I guess (speculation, the official product did not come out, I didn't dare to say). This means that all BCBERs have to be re-learned. Many netizens say it, and all the changes are not from their Zong. As long as the C foundation is good, the new environment is an adaptation stage, and I have different opinions. I have a tool. I don't take him. When the toy, but to use the new BCBX in the actual development, I need to use it immediately to complete the task on the hand, use his improvement to increase productivity. If facing a new BCBX, it is in the exploration, explore in the forward, I will not choose it again, I am more willing to use the already familiar VC, or Delphi, or even BCB6. Even if you want to learn new technologies, I will also choose .NET, not like BCBX. Moreover, everyone knows that Borland's product bug is a lot of Delphi that has already been released, not to mention a brand new BCBX (knowing the Builder C #, it is also how it is bov, it is not bug, ask there, Home business company dare to use him to develop, just that I don't afraid of death guys who take him as a toy), I believe that there will be no business company immediately choose to use, so that I wait for BCBER's job and the day is no life.
Let's take a look at whether the new technology of BCBX is worth looking forward to? From my discussion from my use and listening to netizens on 9CBS, I think these new technologies have not much expected. The first is 100% standard compatibility, and not saying how good the standard is, even if the compatibility criteria does not have to abandon the powerful keywords of BCB already existing, the C standard does not support RTTI (C supplied RTTI mechanism very limited, that is, Dynamic_cast Waiting for keywords, the author means that the RTTI's mechanism of the RTTI provided by C can be said to be better than BCB, so the author has to admit that it has not been treated as RTTI <"Thank you for your questions for a long time." If everyone If you are familiar with BCB, you know how powerful that I am called RTTI, but BCB's RTTI technology is worth Delphi, but this mechanism is very useful; C standard does not support __property, but I think this key is to C The expansion, his perfect embodiment-oriented design idea; C standard does not support __closure, but this keyword is very useful. In order to compatibility, all these long-term testing techniques are removed, which is definitely unwilling to see if I support the standard, I just want to see high-efficiency, high productivity tools, whether he supported Standard, even the opposite is true, just like the current Delphi, is completely Borland's own standard, who dares to say it? What is C ? The standard is not the best, but it is constantly improving, there is no need to take care of the standard than the standard. Then the platform and cross-compilation, this is definitely a good news, but because the BCB itself is characterized, this news is not so exciting. Cross-platform design will definitely make many technologies related to platforms, and the BCB itself appeals because he is quite good for Win32 itself, such as COM / DCOM, ActiveX / Active Form, ADO, COM , etc. And good support for these technologies is the main reason I chose BCB (I want to post when VC.NET is not released, BCB is the only C tool that supports all of these technologies on the market. I don't know in the final BCBX, these technology How much is supported, but it is definitely not 100%. It is not available in the beta version. These techniques are not to say, and they can master these technologies is definitely a good job. Necessary condition.
I am not a C technology fanatic, I chose tools to be based on demand, so I will not ask him 100% compatibility standard for a C tool. For STL, Boost and other class libraries, I have not excessive pursuit, I use C not c Standardization, not to understand the strange C syntax and dance, not to write the code that only written only in the laboratory, so if the BCB is no longer bcb, I would rather use VC to use the so-called 100% standard is compatible, cross-platform, but BCBX is supported by mainstream development technology.
Since I said so much BCBX is not, what kind of BCBX is what I want to see? I remember to have seen a concept Borland Studio. I think this word is the best answer to this question: Similar to .NET IDE; integrated Delphi / C /. NET technology and one, programmers can choose their familiar technology development Application; Development VCL control no longer C development control cannot be used in Delphi (now only Delphi can develop universal controls, the BCB is not line), which provides a smooth transition of the VCL final steering C ; writing a program It can be partially used with Delphi, part uses C , partially uses compilation, and all BCBs are basically implemented, I want to strengthen some can do it; strengthen the compatibility of standards but do not abandon the technical; integrated together technology Add version control; join the lifecycle management capabilities; implement Linux platform, etc., huh, huh, this is my ideal borland studio. When writing this article, I once thought that Borland China went to understand the latest information of Borland, and fed back to some of my thoughts, but unfortunately, did not see any BCBX information on Borland China, if the product of MS is I have already flying it before, I'm not even the programmer knowing a few major technical nouns, then I read Borland, even how many Borland enthusiasts know, such as the time in the front, I Used for a month, someone asks C # Builder is not a follow-up version of BCB, this is really borland's sorrow! If this is the strategy of Borland to treat the product, it is even more angry: Borland China's homepage does not have an official information feedback channel. I found a circle in Borland China, I didn't find information feedback. In addition to "genuine user technical service" is "Sales Consultation" (all email), it seems that Borland's people are busy selling products and then serving genuine User. Under the helplessness, I wrote to two mailboxes above, and the result was five days, there is no response. I remember, I sent MAIL to Motorola, why did you divide the motherland and Taiwan into 2 countries on its official site, and the full-time man of Motorola is very politely replied, and Borland really let me disappointed.
Friends who have seen Li Wei's "Borland Legend" books know that Borland is a dead warrior, and I stood a few times a few times. I think this back, Borland loyal user work is not, no users Support, Borland may not go today, as a loyal borland fan, I sincerely wish Borland to go further.
