Embrace and Extend, Borland Style
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
interesting. I wrote it, BTW.
http://www.lemanix.com/lemanix/lemanixisapi.dll/Entry?ID=1158
Feel free to comment here or on the site.
Nick Hodges - TeamB
Lemanix Corporation
Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
http://www.borland.com/newsgroups
![John Wester [Group W]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
John Wester [Group W]
nickh...@yahoo.com says...
> This is a bit long, but I thought folks here might find it
> interesting. I wrote it, BTW.
>
> http://www.lemanix.com/lemanix/lemanixisapi.dll/Entry?ID=1158
>
> Feel free to comment here or on the site.
>
--
John
Life is complex. It has real and imaginary parts
JoeH
> very favorable (read 'cheap') deal
Therein lies the make/break of your theory IMO.
Quite an assumption, and market leaders are not known
historically for their "flexibility".
--
JoeH [ www.amnesty.org : write a letter, save a life ]
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>Therein lies the make/break of your theory IMO.
>Quite an assumption, and market leaders are not known
>historically for their "flexibility".
I agree -- that is a key turning point. I assert, however, that MS
+wants+ Borland to do this, and thus would be favorable to a deal that
is good for Borland.
But again, I agree that the nature of the deal would make or break the
whole thing.
pNichols
Interesting read Nick, but I was afraid that NET would pretty much be the
end all for any and all competition on Windows. I have not looked at a
Delphi.NET, but committing to anything now on Windows that is not MS Visual
Studio, appears to be a long shot for any new shop going into the NET
venue. The question would have be raised, WHY?
We had justification for Delphi over per NET VS Studio. Delphi was a much
better product and actually did Windows better than MS. Can the same be
said on what will be prolonged release cycles for Delphi to catch up with
what MS already offers?
NET is not a great stride in marketshare gain for Borland. In fact, it can
very easily lead to a further erosion of Delphi and BCB marketshare. I do
not see at this point, why it would lead otherwise. Yes, I do understand
why Borland has to do NET (to try and keep the customers they have), but
from a growth standpoint (at least from what we have seen), I would have to
conclude it will be nil (or null for C++ers, Javites <G>).
The exception to this rule, would be IF Borland can truly create a NET that
is totally compatible with MS NET and at the same time, completely
compatible with MONO. That would give Borland's tools a very real edge. The
problem that Borland will encounter, is that Mono itself is not going to
be compatible with MS' NET and Mono will always be 1 year or more behind in
the attempt to keep Mono.NET and MS NET compatible. But if Borland could
truly pull this off, they could grow in the NET world.
Borland's greatest hope of new marketshare, is JBuilder, C++ BuilderX,
Togethersoft, and OptimizeIT, IMHO.
JBuilder has always held an edge on the competition, but the competition is
getting better. Eclipse is rolling in a new GUI designer that will do
either SWT and/or Swing, which could catapult Java GUI development (if done
correctly and neatly of course), since no one will be able to complain
about Swing's performance (SWT uses native widgets on the underlying OSes
Windowing APIs, aka like TForm, TFrame, TEdit, etc). The new Oracle
JDeveloper has some fantastic new features in it, including Drag and Drop
HTML,XHTML, and data binding to the HTML controls, not to mention Struts.
Once the GUI designers for wxWindows is completed in BuilderX, I doubt many,
if any, will be able to match it for XPlatform development. It stands a
good chance of being a huge Winner. Perhaps a Delphi built like BuilderX,
could give Delphi new life. I realize many Delphites do not give a hoot
about XPlatform development, but I assure you, IT departments do and will.
5% of the marketshare is a large chunk in terms of numbers and possible
revenue streams. Holding that percentile, is worth it, but no new growth
potential, and migrations, will cause that 5% to deteriorate rapidly.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
Interesting post...
>5% of the marketshare is a large chunk in terms of numbers and possible
>revenue streams. Holding that percentile, is worth it, but no new growth
>potential, and migrations, will cause that 5% to deteriorate rapidly.
In summary, I don't agree that there need be a deterioration. The
same situation has been true for Borland for 20 years, but they have
managed to adapt and do okay in the business. The reasons to do
Delphi in .Net are maybe a little different, but there will always be
some people who don't want MS, and some who appreciate the value that
Borland can add and will add.
Craig van Nieuwkerk
with Lino Tadros presenting Delphi8, C#Builder, Visual Studio and .NET. When
asked to give some reasons to use Delphi8 or C#Builder over Visual Studio he
struggled to come up with many things that would be attractive to the
majority of Delphites it think. I think the reasons were along the line of
1. Prefer delphi language to C# (who doesn't!)
2. Better integration with other Borland tools such as StarTeam, Toegether,
ECO.
3. Borland Data Providers
4. VCL.NET
These reasons can all be easily implemented as Visual Studio IDE
enhancements, and some already are. VCL.NET was promoted as migration tool
for old applications and should be avoided if possible, and looking at it in
the demo I agree. After this he was scraping the bottom to find reasons,
like being able to open querys live in the IDE.
Craig
Alessandro Federici
news:njh7svskg5c8m64dm...@4ax.com...
> Feel free to comment here or on the site.
That's some thing new and refreshing!
I like it.
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Federici
RemObjects Software, Inc.
http://www.remobjects.com
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<cra...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>VCL.NET was promoted as migration tool
>for old applications and should be avoided if possible, and looking at it in
>the demo I agree
Craig --
Here I won't agree. The message that Avalon will be the next GUI
layer for .Net has left WinForms a bit out in the cold. Converting to
WinForms isn't necessarily the best way to go, since you'll have to
convert to Avalon later. Sticking with VCL.NET until Avalon comes
along means one conversion, not two.
Alessandro Federici
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 17:15:31 -0600, "Alessandro Federici"
> <nom...@spam.forme> wrote:
>
> >That's some thing new and refreshing!
> >I like it.
That's the best you're gonna get after making me waste my time explaining
you how to achieve the same functionality you get with class-types in C# <G>
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<nom...@spam.forme> wrote:
>That's the best you're gonna get after making me waste my time explaining
>you how to achieve the same functionality you get with class-types in C# <G>
You still haven't provided for the +general case+. ;-)
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<nom...@spam.forme> wrote:
>That's some thing new and refreshing!
>I like it.
Shoot, that's all you have to say? I'm stunned at your brevity! <g>
Alessandro Federici
news:3fc3...@newsgroups.borland.com...> news:phq7sv0pfmu65mfit...@4ax.com...
>
> > You still haven't provided for the +general case+. ;-)
>
See other newsgroup for a repost of my explanation of a few months back
(retyped since I lost the other one).
Alessandro Federici
news:3fc3...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> [..] If there was a new Microsoft Visual Studio 2004 Borland Delphi
Edition,
> I think it would certainly raise a few eyebrows.
Additional thought: they could have probabily also added VCL.Net support in
that too, making existing customers happy as well and probabily spending
less money and time, maybe... Nick should be hired by Borland <G>
Mark
I actually wondered by Borland didn't do this in the first place. By building on
an existing IDE technology means Borland can plough it's resources into the
additional value added components and addins etc.
I think, as you say, Galileo is probably a dead end. There is no reason for
anybody (other than the existing consumer base) to invest in Delphi 7 or 8 as
is. C# is Microsoft, and most people buy and use Microsoft products almost by
default. If there was a new Microsoft Visual Studio 2004 Borland Delphi Edition,
I think it would certainly raise a few eyebrows.
I do hope Borland does do something like this... the number of companies that
are moving from C++Builder to C# is shocking. If Borland are to survive long
term, I believe further integration into the worlds most popular development
environment is essential.
"Nick Hodges (TeamB)" <nickh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:njh7svskg5c8m64dm...@4ax.com...
Lauchlan M
When
> asked to give some reasons to use Delphi8 or C#Builder over Visual Studio
he
> 1. Prefer delphi language to C# (who doesn't!)
> 2. Better integration with other Borland tools such as StarTeam,
Toegether,
> ECO.
> 3. Borland Data Providers
> 4. VCL.NET
And Janeva to integrate Java backends with .NET front ends.
Also there were some IDE things - code snippets, the toolbar, the way things
could be undocked and moved around etc.
But overall there wern't a lot of differences.
To Nick:
OK, the differences between Delphi.NET and VS.NET are currently minimal and
Borland WILL always lag behind releases of VS.NET.
The upside of your plan is that it cuts the lag (provided that new releases
of VS.NET don't break old plugins, which is not something one could always
rely on from MS) and saves Borland some money, but the downside is that it
cuts down on the potential for Borland to differentiate their products (eg
with the ALM initialives) and it will be increasingly harder for anyone to
view Borland as a serious alternative to MS for development tools as under
you plan Borland are just supporting MS's development. But in a sense they
are anyway.
Lauchlan M
jordan smith
Borland has told me that the terms of their license of the .NET framework
(or compiler, or such) forbids them from making VS NET plug ins. (e.g. that
they can choose to create full IDE's or VS NET plug ins, not both)
I say: Get to work with MS and get a license that works for you, or forget
it, focus on Delphi for win32, Java, and Linux.
C# Builder is nice, but going nowhere fast, IMO. I just cannot imagine
_anyone_ making real business decisions choosing C# Builder over VS NET for
commercial software or corporate use. (No matter how good ECO is.)
ECO would make a _killer_ plug in for VS NET. But as its own product, it is
a non-starter.
I also agree that Delphi itself should be absorbed into VS NET. The goal
being:
a) Use VS NET to create/manage Delphi for NET projects.
b) Use Delphi 9 for Win32 to open those projects, compile them for Win32
Jon Springs
changes to the IDE framework which would totally negate Borland's plug-in
efforts. It's been done (anyone remember DR-DOS and Windows Version 3.11).
-----Jon Springs-----
"Lauchlan M" <LMack...@NOSPAMHotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3fc3...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Craig van Nieuwkerk
resources in regards to current WinForms apps and Avalon? If they are
planning to overhaul the whole WinForms part of .NET in the next few years
and make WinForms redundant, it seems pointless to write a WinForms app at
all, may as well just stick with Delphi32 for a few more years.
Jeff Butterworth
"Jon Springs" <jspringsATjontandsheDOTorg> wrote in message
news:3fc408b6$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Jeff Butterworth
"jordan smith" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3fc40105$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Craig van Nieuwkerk
plugins for their IDE not a threat. After all, MS dont make any money off
Visual Studio now, it's just a loss leader to get people using their
platform. If another company wants to enhance it and make it even more
attractive to get people developing software for windows, Bill will be a
happy man.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<nom...@spam.forme> wrote:
>Additional thought: they could have probabily also added VCL.Net support in
>that too,
Indeed they could -- I should have made that point.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<cra...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>If they are
>planning to overhaul the whole WinForms part of .NET in the next few years
>and make WinForms redundant, it seems pointless to write a WinForms app at
>all, may as well just stick with Delphi32 for a few more years.
Give that man a cigar. ;-)
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<cra...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> MS would see it as a benefit if Borland released
>plugins for their IDE not a threat.
Craig --
Let me be clear -- I am not arguing for a plugin to VS.Net, but a
whole Borland IDE +based+ on VS.Net, a completely different animal.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<LMack...@NOSPAMHotmail.com> wrote:
> but the downside is that it
>cuts down on the potential for Borland to differentiate their products (eg
>with the ALM initialives) and it will be increasingly harder for anyone to
>view Borland as a serious alternative to MS for development tools as under
>you plan Borland are just supporting MS's development. But in a sense they
>are anyway.
I see what you are saying, but I envision an IDE that is quite a bit
different, markedly improved (I can't wait for the excellent Component
Palette in Delphi 8) and more feature rich that MS's. Imagine looking
at both of them, seeing the awesome features that Borland would add,
and realizing that Borland's product is compatible with your existing
install base, but way more powerful and productive. That's what I see
happening. As I sort of said in the article, why +not+ buy the
Borland IDE, given the above? ;-)
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>a) Use VS NET to create/manage Delphi for NET projects.
>b) Use Delphi 9 for Win32 to open those projects, compile them for Win32
Here I don't agree. One of my main points is that Borland should
continue to sell their own, enhanced IDE under the Borland name. I
think it is key that Borland stay in the IDE business, but sell an
enhanced, more feature rich IDE.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
>There is no reason for
>anybody (other than the existing consumer base) to invest in Delphi 7 or 8 as
>is
That I don't necessarily agree with. If you are starting a Win32
application today, and need to move it to .Net later, then Delphi is
totally the way to go.
> If there was a new Microsoft Visual Studio 2004 Borland Delphi Edition,
>I think it would certainly raise a few eyebrows.
My hope would be that they wouldn't have to have the words "Visual
Studio" on the box or on the title bar, but I agree with the general
point.
>. If Borland are to survive long
>term, I believe further integration into the worlds most popular development
>environment is essential.
I tend to agree.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<jspringsATjontandsheDOTorg> wrote:
>In addition, M$ could cut Borland's legs off by making some rather simple
>changes to the IDE framework which would totally negate Borland's plug-in
>efforts.
I would assume that the license would preclude that. I also argue
that MS is interested in Borland remaining compatible and competitive.
Jon Springs
> whole Borland IDE +based+ on VS.Net, a completely different animal.
>
>
> Nick Hodges - TeamB
> Lemanix Corporation
> Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
> http://www.borland.com/newsgroups
Nick,
Borland would still be at the mercy of M$ for the interface. All the miriad
file format, API call, intermediate output (AKA .dcu) issues which accrue.
One byte's difference and you're dead in the water.
-----Jon-----
Jon Springs
> "Jon Springs" <jspringsATjontandsheDOTorg> wrote in message
> news:3fc408b6$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
simple
> > changes to the IDE framework which would totally negate Borland's
plug-in
> > efforts. It's been done (anyone remember DR-DOS and Windows Version
3.11).
>
prevent
> their agreement from being valuable to Borland, however, M$ has shown
itself
> to be un-trustworthy and willing to spend the bucks to defend it's
predatory
> stance. All I'm saying is that it might not be in Borland's best interest
to
> take, completely at face value, an agreement with M$!
And, as well, our judicary has failed to understand the impact of M$'s
monopoly (vis-a-vi the settlement agreement) to the extent that they are
willing to reign in M$ and create a truly free market for the software
industry.
I think that .NET is a perfect example of a perfect monopoly maintaining
itself by modifying the market to conform to it's (the monoply's) need to
perpetuate itself by creating technology that isn't necessarily needed but
serves the purpose of the monopoly by changing the market's expectations or
perceived needs in ways that only the monoply can addresss because the
monopoly created the technology and the need in the first place.
Besides, .NET is just Java repackaged to avoid the SUN licenses and the
judgment against M$ for violating them.
My $20.00 worth.
-----Jon-----
Curt Krueger
>
> Feel free to comment here or on the site.
> Nick Hodges - TeamB
Hi Nick,
Although I see your points on development of the IDE, the only issue I
see is longer term, and that is Borland's commitment to cross platform. If
they have their own IDE they will have some options when the mono project
(http://www.go-mono.com/) finally gets to release 1.0 (unless they port
VS.NET to Linux ;) ).
I have a hunch (actually I'm hoping) that Kylix 4 may be similar to the
Delphi 8/Delphi 7 packaging, where you get Kylix 3 (full "native code") and
Kylix 4, Managed code. The very nice thing about this is that Kylix 4 could
potentially be the "all Linux", "all hard ware Platforms", solution that
Kylix 1-3 wanted to be. I see that there's a Power PC version, which there
could be even a Macintosh version! (OK, then I woke up!).
The mono project recently released their road map, and I'm hoping they
can meet the targets. If so, Kylix 4.NET could be reality. I've wondered
if this is the reason for the "delay" on the "word" of what's going to
happen with Kylix? Linux in my opinion NEEDs C# and Delphi, BUT not closed
platform (NOT only x86 or only Distro X)!
Borland still has a lock on the "2 way code", which to me seems to be
missing or clucky in VS.NET. Isn't this a patent Borland owns?
Another disadvantage is that if Microsoft sees Borland making some money
in their IDE, I think Microsoft will make the same plugins to capture that
area (no they wouldn't steal someone's ideas would they?!).
This may be worked around in the licensing but by Borland doing this,
they may give Microsoft their numbers, and Microsoft would know what to go
into or not.
What if Borland and Microsoft make the same enhancements? How easy is
it to manage the plugins/enhancements?
I also think that once .Net 2.0 comes out, there will be a "stabilization"
or "feature lock" on the core language. Honestly, once the generics and the
like get in there, what else is missing? What am I missing?
My 2 Cents...
Hey Nick, how's Business in Mn?
I've had to switch to C#, very little "visible" Delphi work here :(
Curt
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<jspringsATjontandsheDOTorg> wrote:
>Borland would still be at the mercy of M$ for the interface. All the miriad
>file format, API call, intermediate output (AKA .dcu) issues which accrue.
>One byte's difference and you're dead in the water.
That is true, but changing that would change it for everyone.
In addition, I think MS's view on this has changed. I think they
really are interested in Borland succeeding in the .Net space. They
seem genuinely pleased that Borland is doing Delphi for .Net.
Jon Springs
news:3fc408b6$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> changes to the IDE framework which would totally negate Borland's plug-in
> efforts. It's been done (anyone remember DR-DOS and Windows Version 3.11).
Yes, Borland would and should try to preempt any movement by M$ to prevent
their agreement from being valuable to Borland, however, M$ has shown itself
to be un-trustworthy and willing to spend the bucks to defend it's predatory
stance. All I'm saying is that it might not be in Borland's best interest to
take, completely at face value, an agreement with M$!
-----Jon-----
Jon Springs
And Win 3.11 did for everyone having an alternate DOS. Bigger issue but
still valid.
> In addition, I think MS's view on this has changed. I think they
> really are interested in Borland succeeding in the .Net space. They
> seem genuinely pleased that Borland is doing Delphi for .Net.
>
>
> Nick Hodges - TeamB
> Lemanix Corporation
> Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
> http://www.borland.com/newsgroups
Nick,
I truly admire your positive attitude.
It does, however, ignore 20 years and a court's assessment of the M$
mentality.
-----Jon----
BTW, nothing personal, I very much appreciate what you contribute to these
fora. It's just that I've been in this business 37 years. Have gone through
the 7 Sisters episodes, the IBM trial, etc, etc, and have kinda given up on
knights in shining armor and leopards changing their spots.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<jspringsATjontandsheDOTorg> wrote:
>
>It does, however, ignore 20 years and a court's assessment of the M$
>mentality.
Well, it's been pretty clear that MS has been very helpful to Borland
all through the development process of building the DCCIL compiler and
the Galileo IDE. The Borland guys couldn't stress enough how good the
relationship has been.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<ckru...@NOSPAMdigitalaxiom.com> wrote:
> Although I see your points on development of the IDE, the only issue I
>see is longer term, and that is Borland's commitment to cross platform. If
>they have their own IDE they will have some options when the mono project
>(http://www.go-mono.com/) finally gets to release 1.0 (unless they port
>VS.NET to Linux ;) ).
A couple of people have mentioned that, and I hadn't really thought of
that angle. I wonder what actual value there is in a Mono capable
IDE. The market for development tools in Linux is, well, a bit tough.
> Borland still has a lock on the "2 way code", which to me seems to be
>missing or clucky in VS.NET. Isn't this a patent Borland owns?
That sounds right, but I'm not sure.
> What if Borland and Microsoft make the same enhancements? How easy is
>it to manage the plugins/enhancements?
Well, that would be fun -- an IDE enhancement competition. Good for
everyone! <g>
>My 2 Cents...
Thanks -- interesting comments.
>Hey Nick, how's Business in Mn?
Good -- are you still around God's Country?
Jon Springs
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 20:09:35 -0800, "Jon Springs"
> <jspringsATjontandsheDOTorg> wrote:
>
> >
> >It does, however, ignore 20 years and a court's assessment of the M$
> >mentality.
>
> Well, it's been pretty clear that MS has been very helpful to Borland
> all through the development process of building the DCCIL compiler and
> the Galileo IDE. The Borland guys couldn't stress enough how good the
> relationship has been.
And this can be thrashed to death if we continued it.
My point is this:
If Borland places it's future in trusting M$, the odds are that that trust
is misplaced.
M$'s only interest in Borland, at this juncture, is 'Keep the Feds off our
backs'.
M$ will feed Borland, or whomever, enough to keep the monopoly police off
their trail. That isn't hard to do when the police don't understand the
technology and can be easily fooled that competition is advanced by
providing the interface to one function in the kernel.
Your assessment of M$'s change of face just doesn't jibe with their history.
Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, not trying to advocate mass
insurrection.
-----Jon-----
Curt Krueger
> Good -- are you still around God's Country?
> Nick Hodges - TeamB
Yes, I'm still here, although I don't necessarily agree with the statement
unless you add "forgotten" in the middle (at least this time of year) ;) ..
Working in the "south". Start a new job Dec 4th, using VS.NET and C#. Small
town, population 2000! Very weird.. It'll be nice to go "against" traffic,
instead of with the mobile parking lot in the Twin Cities..
Don't get me wrong, I love Delphi, but if it isn't paying the bills, my
"love" don't pay the house payment by itself :).. I'm going to get Delphi
8, to keep my "chops" up though.. I guess put another way, C# will confirm
to me how much more I love Delphi.. Ah, a second or more language never
hurt anyone..
On the Mono project, I think that if they could get their modeling tools
and the rest of the new stuff working with Kylix 4 (K4 being C# and Delphi),
there would be a market in the "Enterprise" area. I'd have to agree with
you though, that if they targeted the single developer, they wouldn't and
have not gotten the response they wanted. It's got to be high end or
nothing in Linux I think to make a buck. There's tons of free stuff out
there for the bottom end.
Curt
Bob Dawson
>
> [...] I assert ... that MS +wants+ Borland to do this
Interesting piece, Nick, but I'm not sure that the term 'MS' is coherent in
this context. IOW, one has to recognize the probable internal forces within
MS on this issue. Would the .NET team think this a good move?
Undoubtedly--we know that the respective compiler and infrastructure teams
are on very good terms if Danny's comments (among others) are any
indication. Likewise I had the impression that the SQL Server folks at the
conference were legitimately pulling for Borland--DFDN and Yukon sound like
a great combination to them.
But who controls the Visual Studio licensing? The same people who wrote the
compact framework debugging code that Borland needs for CF support and won't
license it to them? Probably: the developer tools/VS division. And the
Visual Studio team has little reason to cut Borland any kind of deal at
all--they're direct competitors. The theoretically 'larger interests' of MS
as a whole will carry little weight unless someone up top applies a mallet
repeatedly to the VS division's leadership.
Given the lack of any announcement for licensing the compact framework
stuff, that mallet work doesn't appear to be happening. Rather the
reverse--Borland can't get CF debugging, and has been specifically
prohibited from adopting the VS plug-in interface (can't license it, can't
even look at it); why force this imcompatibility on them if MS wants Borland
to succeed in .NET? The VS team is doing exactly what you'd expect a direct
competitor to do--being as obstructionist as possible.
Conclusion: while some people in MS would like Borland to be a strong ally,
the specific people holding the keys to VS compatibility/licensing do not
share this enthusiam at all. So your premise that a favorable deal could be
reached is highly doubtful.
bobD
RandomAccess
> My hope would be that they wouldn't have to have the words "Visual
> Studio" on the box or on the title bar, but I agree with the general
> point.
>
Well, I think they "should" have Visual Studio on the box. Considering
your point that "people don't get fired for buying Microsoft", making
Borland appear much more involved with Microsoft net development I would
think is a good thing and not a bad one. Companies associate visual studio
with Microsoft and if Borland had a FULLY compatible offering, then this
might be acceptable to many companies who currently shun Borland's software
development products.
The thing I find confusing about your article is that if Borland License
Visual Studio Net and then go off and totally change it's appearance, put
their name on it and enhance it so it doesn't look like Visual Studio
anymore, how is that helpful from a Marketting Point of view?
Will Borland products really be easier to sell to these companies who only
want Microsoft? The problem as I see it has never been one of capability.
Borlands products have often exceeded the competion - but selling those
products requires much more than that.
I agree, if Borland were serious about making money, and getting better
exposure, then Licensing Visual Studio Net for their IDE could be the right
way to go.
Best regards
Lauchlan M
> >planning to overhaul the whole WinForms part of .NET in the next few
years
> >and make WinForms redundant, it seems pointless to write a WinForms app
at
> >all, may as well just stick with Delphi32 for a few more years.
>
> Give that man a cigar. ;-)
Is Avalon that XAML based stuff so that you can use essentially the same
button components on a Winform and an ASP.NET page instead of needing two
types of buttons etc? I thought that was Indigo for some reason (getting
lost in code names . . .)
Lauchlan M
Paul McWhinnie
or IDEs but languages as well imo. C++ aside, it's Java and well, Java or
.NET and C# (perception - the language of dotNET).
Flipping it on it's head.. why not have MS include the Delphi language as a
native part of VS? (VCL excluded of course). No, I haven't considered the
monetary implications of this. :)
Paul
It was nice meeting you at the btp breakfast btw.
"Nick Hodges (TeamB)" <nickh...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:njh7svskg5c8m64dm...@4ax.com...
> This is a bit long, but I thought folks here might find it
> interesting. I wrote it, BTW.
>
> http://www.lemanix.com/lemanix/lemanixisapi.dll/Entry?ID=1158
>
> Feel free to comment here or on the site.
>
>
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
| This is something I have heard about but dont know much. Do you have
| any resources in regards to current WinForms apps and Avalon? If they
| are planning to overhaul the whole WinForms part of .NET in the next
| few years and make WinForms redundant, it seems pointless to write a
| WinForms app at all, may as well just stick with Delphi32 for a few
| more years.
This lack of stability in GUI standards (VCL, CLX, .NET) is the main reason
why I designed a Delphi Model View Presenter framework which allows me to
write all of my application logic without a GUI and then just change the
type of the GUI classes used to display the business objects.
Joanna
--
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
Consultant Software Engineer
TeamBUG support for UK-BUG
TeamMM support for ModelMaker
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
| Well, it's been pretty clear that MS has been very helpful to Borland
| all through the development process of building the DCCIL compiler and
| the Galileo IDE. The Borland guys couldn't stress enough how good the
| relationship has been.
I sometimes wonder whether we should learn from nature, where predators
often court their victims.
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
| Have you been much out in the nature? :)
| I would like just one example of this behaviour...
Carnivorous plants, which offer a fly a tasty meal and then proceed to
consume it.
Ingvar Nilsen
> I sometimes wonder whether we should learn from nature, where
> predators often court their victims.
Have you been much out in the nature? :)
I would like just one example of this behaviour...
--
Ingvar Nilsen
Ingvar Nilsen
> Ingvar Nilsen wrote:
>
> | Have you been much out in the nature? :) | I would like just one
> example of this behaviour...
>
The female eats the male after the act, yes, but the male individual at
least got what he was after and it saves him a lot of trouble
afterwards, dealing with an unpredictable and pregnant female <g>.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
Ingvar Nilsen
> Ingvar Nilsen wrote:
>
> | Have you been much out in the nature? :) | I would like just one
> example of this behaviour...
>
> Carnivorous plants, which offer a fly a tasty meal and then proceed
> to consume it.
This is well known, among plants, fish etc. etc. But I would call it a
trap, not "court", because it is a passive act, "court" is an activity.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
ES
It is all a monopoly thing. You are also suggesting to give up a lot
Borlands indepence.
Here's a not unlikely scenario if Borland is doing it your way:
Lincence the MS IDE for lets say 5 years and build plugins for it -> MS will
build/buy plugins too and will still be cheaper, heck they are giving it
away allready.
After that period they have to licence it again on which terms do you think?
It's embrace and extend the MS way.
Short term: Cost will go down and sales will be the same.
Long term: No Borland IDE, No research in the IDE arena (read: no more
patents to gain->sell, licence to others), more dependence on MS ->
consequences are unknown but most likely not favorable for Borland.
don't like it
ES
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
| Have you been much out in the nature? :)
| I would like just one example of this behaviour...
Black Widow spiders who offer sex to a mate and then eat them.
Joanna
Craig van Nieuwkerk
what it would be.
Luigi D. Sandon
exactly MS planned for .NET. A big black hole for all development under
Windows.
Anyway, this would mean Delphi would "die" in two years, IMHO, and C#Builder
earlier. Borland would become an "add on" seller for VS, and there will be
plenty of them. People would buy add ons like ECO, Together or OptimizeIT,
but why should they care about another language? And they will always have
to run behind MS.
Simply speaking, if Delphi goes totally .NET I will switch to MS VS, not a
Borland VS. I will be able to use C++ for native code and C# for .NET
applications whenever needed, in a single package. Then I can buy the
add-ons I need - they will work with VS anyway.
I hoped Delphi could make the same with a single language - not two - and be
cross platform without relying on some doubtful initiatives like Mono. But
Borland does not think it is an opportunity. Maybe it is not, I do not have
their insight on the market probably, but I know my market and a Delphi
add-on for VS it's not useful for me.
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Luigi D. Sandon
> enhanced, more feature rich IDE.
Do you believe MS will allow it? Especially with a C# compiler? Maybe for
Delphi only, but I have to see it to believe.
MS never gave away gifts to its competitors, I can't believe they will
develop a good a IDE and give it to Borland to make it better - would you do
it with an application of yours?
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Eric Grange
Eric
Luigi D. Sandon
could
If I chose Linux and wanted "managed code" I'd been using Java already. How
many people here talking about Mono had already developed under Linux? Or
they just hope to open a new market without having to change their apps?
Anyway if Mono succeded, you shouldn't need a Kylix, simply a Delphi for
Net. Is JBuilder different on Windows or Linux? Kyilx is different because
it is a native tool for a different platform.
However, I am ready to bet on the success of .NET on the Linux platform.
Unix/Linux sysadmins and developers don't like too much MS stuff on their
machines... or they would have been MS Windows syadmins and developers.
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Luigi D. Sandon
development
> environment is essential.
"Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated".
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Luigi D. Sandon
> exposure, then Licensing Visual Studio Net for their IDE could be the
right
> way to go.
What about selling the whole company to MS? It's much easier and they get a
good marketing department for the ALM solution.
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Luigi D. Sandon
ally,
Don't believe in smiles at conferences too much... they are there to sell
you *their* tools, not to help you to sell yours. I am sure SQL Server
people were pampering Delphi developers, "oh, how beautiful you are, what a
marvelous tool, come on, come with us, get rid of those awful Oracle and
DB2..."
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Buch
I like your heresy. :)
However, I think borland can survive only if it offers multiplatform.
Multiplatform is cool, and gives power not to pay microsoft every few years.
Because net is not multiplatform, never will be, vs IDE will never be multiplatform (not very important), and target would never be multiplatform.
If Borland makes VS IDE targets multiplatform, it would probably hit some clause in licence.
Therefore, best thing is continue to develop JBuilder' IDE,
and perhaps do as you said at the same time.
Luigi D. Sandon
LOL! They are pleased as long as antitrust is watching them! And they know
a .NET only version of Delphi will probably kill it - something they never
achieved with VB. Yes, they are really pleased! The only real competitor in
the RAD market is coming into the trap!
And I guess they were really afraid about a *real* RAD tool under Linux
(something Kylix is not yet fully), therefore they are really pleased
Borland is spending its efforts in .NET and not elsewhere....
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Chris Brooksbank
> layer for .Net has left WinForms a bit out in the cold. Converting to
> WinForms isn't necessarily the best way to go, since you'll have to
> convert to Avalon later. Sticking with VCL.NET until Avalon comes
> along means one conversion, not two.
As long as you keep your UI and non UI code seperate enough then this
shouldnt be so big an issue. i.e. write WinForms now, come Avalon you keep
all your existing non UI assemblies and write some markup for the UI.
Craig van Nieuwkerk
Lauchlan M
a
> good marketing department for the ALM solution.
They're pretty close already. MS own 10% of Borland, and they have a close
working relationship.
It looks like a classic pretakeover situation (think of Visio, Front Page
etc's relationship with MS befoer being bought out) <g>, except that:
(i) Taking over Borland would be stupid for MS because it would remove
apparent competition and open them up to charges of having a monopoly in
development tools or similar. At the moment they have benefits because the
competition spurs on their development team, and MS still have a close
collaboration with a partner 100% endorsing and supporting .NET. It's a win
for them so why rock the boat by Buying Borland?
(ii) Borland do other stuff as well that MS wouldn't want, like JBuilder,
which would fit better with Sun or someone else, which MS would presumably
want to ditch (or run into the ground) if they bought Borland
(iii) It would raise quite a bit of PR confusion for very little benefit
Lauchlan M
Lauchlan M
> develop a good a IDE and give it to Borland to make it better - would you
do
> it with an application of yours?
Why not? It's still selling .NET, which is selling Windows. Which is where
they make most of their money, apparently.
Lauchlan M
Andrea Raimondi
<snip>
Hi Nick,
I've read your point almost entirely, but don't totally agree with it.
First of all: I'm very doubtful that M$ will really base its future on
dotNETted OS,RDBMS,Office Suite.
Secondly, I don't beleive there won't be new APIs underlying the dotNET
classes, since:
1) If( and I say IF ) a "kernel-level" features gets added to Windows, it
will be
through API
2) If the 1) happens, there won't be tools able to interface to those
APIs( who
tells you that MS doesn't change the PE format and disallows newly
installed
applications to be in the old format? )
You may say it's sci-fi, but I wouldn't underestimate the risk, because
we're
always speaking of M$ and because I don't think it would be a big deal to
actually do it for M$.
Longhorn: this will be a challenge for M$. Why are they delaying it so much?
What are they *really* doing? Yeah, Windows always shipped late, but... this
is
going to be /very/ late... I'm wondering what the heck they're doing.
BTW: I don't have Word on my home computer. Only OpenOffice <g>.
Coming to Borland.
I love Borland *a lot*.
I loved TP and TPW, back then.
I liked OWL and TurboVision.
I still save my BP7 disks <g>.
Is Borland doing the right thing? I don't know.
I'm not in a position to judge this.
What I know is that I really see my Delphi future really on the cut, and I
have *no* idea where we're going to.
As to dotNET:
It's basically Delphi Enhanced, Anders has only taken Delphi a step further.
Now, I am wondering IF M$ has used Borland proprietary technology and
trade secrets to make dotNET... that would be interesting to verify. Or was
that $100 million transaction just for this? <g>.
Ok, it's X-Files here now... :-)
I cannot stop thinking that resuming Kylix, fixing its bugs, and extending
it to
support namespaces and such, would allow Borland to have THREE
platforms up&running, which I beleive would be a trade advance on the
competitors... am I wrong?
Yeah, most people didn't buy Kylix because :
- The price was TOO high
- The features per version weren't what people was expecting them to be
- Most software in the Linux world is *free* and the only closed software
that
sells is Oracle, DB2 and such.
The problem has been - imho - that young people couldn't easily afford
retail versions at a decent price, thus cutting off a quite good customer
base.
The same applies to Delphi - of course.
What I see here now, in this thread and in the devel environment, is a huge
MESS.
Is there anyone knowing where he/she wants to go?
That's the problem, imho.
And I don't see any chance to get rid of this mess as long as someone
doesn't start pointing his/her finger in some direction.
I point mine towards the direction of cross platform with and without
dotNET,
with Kylix/Delphi/Delphi for net all together co-operating for users'
satisfaction.
Cheers,
Andrew
Luigi D. Sandon
Maybe. But there are other implications, especially "marketing"
implications. MS can't let someone else to "appear" better on Windows,
especially using their code, and especially if Borland keeps on supporting
non MS products (Oracle, DB2, etc. etc.)
Otherwise why MS had to fight Borland? Yes, its office suite was a threat,
but they fought in the development tools a lot too. Now they need Borland to
make .NET take off, after that will they need it again?
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Bob Dawson
> Don't believe in smiles at conferences too much... they are there
> to sell you *their* tools, not to help you to sell yours.
Of course--I didn't suggest that anyone at MS was or should be a selfless
admirerer of Borland technology. Nevertheless, it remains the case that
Borland and some specific divisions within MS have natual, mutually
beneficial alliances. SQLServer and the MS .NET team do not compete with the
Borland .NET team; rather, they benefit from its success to the extent that
DFDN and C#B act as additional portals to their technologies.
This is all bye-the-bye, however. My main point was that such a natural
alliance does not hold at all between Borland and the VS team; rather, there
is the natural antagonism here one expects of direct competitors. VS would
have to be ordered to 'take a bullet for the team' to offer any sort of
acceptable licensing deal to Borland. And they obviously have not been so
ordered--if they had, we'd be seeing licensed compact framework support in
Borland tools. It hasn't happened.
So I find Nick's argument that 'MS wants it to happen' a weak
overgeneralization of the forces involved. I see no evidence whatsoever that
MS-corporate will order the MS developer tools division to act against its
own self interest--and that's what making a sweetheart deal with Borland
over VS licensing would be doing.
bobD
Joanna Carter (TeamB)
| So I find Nick's argument that 'MS wants it to happen' a weak
| overgeneralization of the forces involved. I see no evidence
| whatsoever that MS-corporate will order the MS developer tools
| division to act against its own self interest--and that's what making
| a sweetheart deal with Borland over VS licensing would be doing.
I have just looked at some of the presentations on VS Whidbey IDE from PDC
and it causes me to think that it will be even more tempting than it almost
is now
:-)
Joanna
Luigi D. Sandon
> beneficial alliances. SQLServer and the MS .NET team do not compete with
the
As long as upper executives approve it. MS divisions are no indipendent
islands. Knowing MS, all that happens is part of a "strategic plan" decided
beforehand. I believe developers on "both sides" can find beneficial to
speak to each other, but I am also sure when time will come someone in a MS
huge office will say "ok, it's enough" and their divisions will obey.
> acceptable licensing deal to Borland. And they obviously have not been so
> ordered--if they had, we'd be seeing licensed compact framework support in
Mobile device development is a key feature in the near future. It is not a
mistery why MS is holding its key. And this is another hint Borland should
not go to much in the MS field. They will only receive what's in MS
interest, not Borland's. Sometimes those interestes may be the same, but I
won't rely on that.
> overgeneralization of the forces involved. I see no evidence whatsoever
that
> MS-corporate will order the MS developer tools division to act against its
As said before, what's happening is what MS-corporate wants to happen.
Nothing more, nothing less. And as said in another post, I am sure MS
wouldn't license VS to Borland if Borland could make it a better VS. It
would be simply silly on their part, unless they can see an adantage in it -
don't know what, however.
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Luigi D. Sandon
I was replying to the words:
> I agree, if Borland were serious about making money, and getting better
> exposure
To make money and get better exposure for their products the easy way is
sell the company to MS :-) because they know those kinds of jobs very well.
Or perhaps I'll try to hire some MS marketing guys, if I were Borland....
don't know if they can pay them enough... :-)
And many would read Borland using VS IDE as the acknowledgment that MS tools
were better.... <g>
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Jimmy [Used-Disks]
> Borland should abandon the Galileo IDE,
> license the Visual Studio.Net IDE via the
> Visual Studio Industry Partner program,
> brand it as their own, and enhance it
> with their own plug-ins, features, and
> capabilities
That sounds familiar...
http://www.devexpress.com/products/net/coderush/index.asp
--
-Jimmy
Ray Porter
>
> > My hope would be that they wouldn't have to have the words "Visual
> > Studio" on the box or on the title bar, but I agree with the general
> > point.
> >
>
I'm rather intrigued by this idea, Nick, and I think it has a great deal of
merit. However, I do think that any such project should certainly have
"Visual Studio" on the box. The point is to make sure the MS partnership
and alliance is visible and that people know it's strong. Marketing would
have to make it very clear that this tool gives you everything VS does plus
a lot more. While I agree "VS.Net Borland Edition" could support a higher
price (assuming marketing could sell the higher value idea), I don't think
it could be dramatically higher.
Ray Porter
Clay Shannon
news:3FC46873.7090701@online-not-this-part-.no...
> Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:
> > I sometimes wonder whether we should learn from nature, where
> > predators often court their victims.
1. Black widow spider
2. Humans (sometimes)
Bob Dawson
>
> I have just looked at some of the presentations on VS Whidbey
> IDE from PDC and it causes me to think that it will be even
> more tempting than it almost is now
Certainly a Borland strategy of "inherit core functions while concentrating
on usability/feature enhancements" is a strong approach, and is consistent
with both Nick's proposal and various statements of desire/intent from
Borland. I don't see any 'Not Invented Here' attitude coming out of Scott's
valley.
I just don't see MS cutting the deal.
bobD
Bill Mogk
{snip}
>
> Borland IDE, given the above? ;-)
1. Because the VS.Net IDE is "good enough".
I had a brief discussion in one of these newsgroups a couple of years ago (with
a Team B'er, I think) about one of the productivity enhancing features of
CodeRush. As a former Coderush advocate, I was raving about a particular
feature. The response was, "I don't need that feature", or "I'd rather type it
by myself". In this person's mind, the basic Delphi IDE was "Good Enough". I
think this is the general attitude of most development managers.
2. "I thought Borland had gone out of business years ago?"
I have even heard this from a corporate developer friend, as recently as a
couple of months ago. BTW, I not necessarily placing complete blame on Borland
marketing for this. My impression of the average corporate developer is that of
a person going to work, doing the old 9-to-5, and getting the hell out of there.
These guys don't know, and could care less that there is a better tool than
the one they are using. Sorry, that's just my jaded view of corporate North America.
My bottom line - I don't think it makes a Borland IDE more "salable", especially
to existing VS.net users.
Bill
Bill Mogk
> Joanna Carter (TeamB) wrote:
> > Ingvar Nilsen wrote:
> >
> > | Have you been much out in the nature? :) | I would like just one
> > example of this behaviour...
> >
> > Black Widow spiders who offer sex to a mate and then eat them.
>
> The female eats the male after the act, yes, but the male individual at
> least got what he was after and it saves him a lot of trouble
> afterwards, dealing with an unpredictable and pregnant female <g>.
>
So it's a Win/Win?
Bill
Eric Grange
...and getting eaten alive by his offsprings when they hatch ;)
Eric
Bob Dawson
>
> As long as upper executives approve it. MS divisions are no
> a "strategic plan" decided beforehand.
I think that, like Nick, you overestimate the degree to which MS is a
coherent, single-idea beast on all points and at all times. Certainly
there's no question about who's ultimately in charge, or whether the various
divisions will tow the line if so ordered. But think of MS more like an
absolute monarchy--just because the king is in charge doesn't mean he's
behind everything. Rather, barons and warlords all competing for the king's
approval can make for very nasty court politics, and a very aggressive
kingdom over all.
My supposition is that the .NET and SQLServer divisions see it as in their
own interests to cooperate with Borland, whereas the VS group doesn't. It's
as simple as that. The contradiction exists because MS-corporate has not
stepped in and dictated a unified policy. Of course they could--there's just
no indication that they have.
> Mobile device development is a key feature in the near future.
> It is not a mistery why MS is holding its key.
Specifically, the developer tools/VS team holds this key. MS hasn't told
them they have to share it, so they haven't.
> As said before, what's happening is what MS-corporate wants
> to happen. Nothing more, nothing less.
I seriously doubt that. I have worked in very large organizations that
could, when required, turn on a dime just as fast as Microsoft can. But that
doesn't mean that there weren't conflicting opinions and activities going on
inside.
bobD
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Borland has told me that the terms of their license of the .NET
> framework (or compiler, or such) forbids them from making VS NET plug
> ins. (e.g. that they can choose to create full IDE's or VS NET plug
> ins, not both)
As you say, not both. I don't think the license should be a huge
issue there, since Borland would be crazy to attempt to support both
their own IDE and MSs -- I don't think they have the manpower to have
the same team support two IDEs concurrently.
-Craig
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://delphi.weblogs.com
IB 6 versions prior to 6.0.1.6 are pre-release and may corrupt
your DBs! Open Edition users, get 6.0.1.6 from http://mers.com
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>The point is to make sure the MS partnership
>and alliance is visible and that people know it's strong.
Agreed -- see my reply to "RandomAccess" The VSIP compatibility is a
key selling point and should be made clear right up front in all the
marketing materials.
Nick Hodges - TeamB
Lemanix Corporation
Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
http://www.borland.com/newsgroups
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<RBDa...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>Interesting piece, Nick, but I'm not sure that the term 'MS' is coherent in
>this context. IOW, one has to recognize the probable internal forces within
>MS on this issue. Would the .NET team think this a good move?
I recognize that. There clearly is a division between the Tools
people and the platform people at Microsoft. The Tools people
naturally feel the competition from Borland, and may well not like my
idea at all. However, the Platform people probably do. The platform
folks are the ones that Borland seems to be working so well with. I
probably should have noted this in the article.
>But who controls the Visual Studio licensing?
Well, not to be glib, but for a deal like that, I'd say Gates and
Ballmer do. For something as big as this, I would guess that they'd
set a policy, and the Tools division would have to grudgingly go
along.
>The theoretically 'larger interests' of MS
>as a whole will carry little weight unless someone up top applies a mallet
>repeatedly to the VS division's leadership.
I think that is a real possibility. The continued growth and success
of the platform is far more important that the continued growth and
success of VS.NET, in my view. I think MS views it the same way.
>and has been specifically
>prohibited from adopting the VS plug-in interface (can't license it, can't
>even look at it); why force this imcompatibility on them if MS wants Borland
>to succeed in .NET?
I think the VS plugin interface impass is a direct result of MS
pressuring Borland to do exactly what I am proposing. In other words,
MS is saying "If you want to be VSIP compatible, you have to license
our IDE". And that's my point -- I think Borland should do just that.
>So your premise that a favorable deal could be
>reached is highly doubtful.
Well, as I said, I don't agree. My previous paragraph explains, to a
large degree, why I think +Borland+ has actually been the one
resisting making the deal, not MS.
I appreciate the thoughtful discsussion.
Luigi D. Sandon
> own interests to cooperate with Borland, whereas the VS group doesn't.
It's
MS is interested in supporting SQL Server against Oracle in the DB arena
where it is not the number one, but not to have too much competition in the
dev tools arena where it is already the number one (under Windows, of
course).
> Specifically, the developer tools/VS team holds this key. MS hasn't told
> them they have to share it, so they haven't.
This is a strategic decision. I think these decisions are taken much higher,
not by division managers. Those keys are in the hands of the Gate(s)keeper,
I'd say... the whole .NET standardization should have been carefully
planned, because they can't allow it to get out of hands.
> doesn't mean that there weren't conflicting opinions and activities going
on
> inside.
Agree, but I see the perimeter of the MS fortress is well guarded. There may
be conflicts inside, but I have not the impression they pour out from the
walls. Upper management I think is very careful about that.
--
Luigi D. Sandon
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>Do you believe MS will allow it? Especially with a C# compiler? Maybe for
>Delphi only, but I have to see it to believe.
Yes, I do. I think that they are very interested in
1) receiving support from all quarters for .Net
2) cultivating competition. It is not in their interest to appear to
dominate the dev tools market.
>MS never gave away gifts to its competitors, I can't believe they will
>develop a good a IDE and give it to Borland to make it better - would you do
>it with an application of yours?
If I thought it would increase my profits, I sure would.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>Well, I think they "should" have Visual Studio on the box.
I agree there. Something like "Totally compatible with Visual Studio
and Visual Studio Plugins" ought to be a bullet on the box somewhere.
That would be one of the key selling points.
> Companies associate visual studio
>with Microsoft and if Borland had a FULLY compatible offering, then this
>might be acceptable to many companies who currently shun Borland's software
>development products.
+Exactly+ Doing this will actually make it harder to say "no" to
Borland.
>The thing I find confusing about your article is that if Borland License
>Visual Studio Net and then go off and totally change it's appearance, put
>their name on it and enhance it so it doesn't look like Visual Studio
>anymore, how is that helpful from a Marketting Point of view?
Because they can put the bullet above on the box. The "Borland
Developer Studio" would be able to consume all VS.NET plugins, and
that would be a key selling point.
>Will Borland products really be easier to sell to these companies who only
>want Microsoft? The problem as I see it has never been one of capability.
>Borlands products have often exceeded the competion - but selling those
>products requires much more than that.
Agreed -- some companies will only want MS no matter what. But the
companies that woudn't mind Borland, but don't buy Borland because of
incompatibilites would disappear; hence, more sales opportunites.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Bob Dawson
>
> Agree, but I see the perimeter of the MS fortress is well guarded.
Okay--then we have a legitimate difference of impression. I see MS only as
capable of monolithic action at times, but not being that well-coordinated
on a day to day, decision by decision level. So I tend to see the various
divisions as cooperating with or obstructing Borland for their own purposes,
and not as directed actions of a unified plan.
bobD
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<paul.mc...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>It was nice meeting you at the btp breakfast btw.
You, too, BTW.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
I understand about the toughness of Delphi -- especially in a place
like rural Minnesota. Glad you found a good project, though.
And feel free to sign up for the Twin Cities Delphi User Group mailing
list at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mspdelphi/
> On the Mono project, I think that if they could get their modeling tools
>and the rest of the new stuff working with Kylix 4 (K4 being C# and Delphi),
>there would be a market in the "Enterprise" area. I'd have to agree with
>you though, that if they targeted the single developer, they wouldn't and
>have not gotten the response they wanted. It's got to be high end or
>nothing in Linux I think to make a buck. There's tons of free stuff out
>there for the bottom end.
I don't discount Borland's interest in Mono. I know they are keeping
an eye on it. How Novell deals with it will be interesting to see. I
think the potential is pretty good. Delphi certainly has a better
shot at being compatible with it that any MS tool does.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<paul.mc...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>Flipping it on it's head.. why not have MS include the Delphi language as a
>native part of VS? (VCL excluded of course). No, I haven't considered the
>monetary implications of this. :)
My main reason for opposing this is that it isn't in Borland's
interest to make their customers buy their competitors tools. So yes,
there are some financial implications for this. ;-)
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
>It is all a monopoly thing. You are also suggesting to give up a lot
>Borlands indepence.
They will be giving up some, yes.
>Lincence the MS IDE for lets say 5 years and build plugins for it -> MS will
>build/buy plugins too and will still be cheaper, heck they are giving it
>away allready.
Competition is good for all concerned.
>After that period they have to licence it again on which terms do you think?
I can't say, but no one can, really. I'm not arguing that there
aren't risks involved.
How about instead of a five year license, they negotiate a 25 year
license? Would that change your view?
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<rain...@tin.it> wrote:
>: I'm very doubtful that M$ will really base its future on
>dotNETted OS,RDBMS,Office Suite.
Hmm -- I don't think +anyone+ else doubts this. I think it is pretty
clear that MS has bet the ranch on .Net.
>You may say it's sci-fi, but I wouldn't underestimate the risk, because
>we're
>always speaking of M$ and because I don't think it would be a big deal to
>actually do it for M$.
I simply think that the landscape has changed. I understand that many
people still view MS very skeptically, but I think the combination of
Java and the USDOJ has changed the way they operate.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<LMack...@NOSPAMHotmail.com> wrote:
>Is Avalon that XAML based stuff so that you can use essentially the same
>button components on a Winform and an ASP.NET page instead of needing two
>types of buttons etc?
Yes --
> I thought that was Indigo for some reason (getting
>lost in code names . . .)
I can't keep up with them either. <g>
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<jspringsATjontandsheDOTorg> wrote:
>If Borland places it's future in trusting M$, the odds are that that trust
>is misplaced.
I understand your viewpoint. However, what are the risks of +not+
doing it? That needs to be considered as well. I think the risks are
greater, but I have a better view of MS than many here. ;-)
>Your assessment of M$'s change of face just doesn't jibe with their history.
Well, any +real+ change wouldn't jibe with their history, by
definition. ;-)
>
>Again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate, not trying to advocate mass
>insurrection.
Not a problem. I appreciate your comments.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<noe...@used-disks.com> wrote:
>That sounds familiar...
Not really -- DevExpress isn't selling their own, VSIP-licensed IDE.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>. Borland would become an "add on" seller for VS, and there will be
>plenty of them.
I am arguing exactly the opposite -- I +dont'+ think that Borland
should become an add-on seller.
> People would buy add ons like ECO, Together or OptimizeIT,
>but why should they care about another language?
For the same reason that people have been buying Delphi for all these
years.
>Simply speaking, if Delphi goes totally .NET
First, Borland has been pretty emphatic about +not+ going totally
.Net. Second, MS is going totally .Net, so Borland needs to go that
way no matter what.
>but I know my market and a Delphi
>add-on for VS it's not useful for me.
Again, I am specifically +not+ arguing for a Delphi add-on to VS. NET.
Quite the opposite, actually.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>1. Because the VS.Net IDE is "good enough".
That will be true for many people no matter what. But my point is
that removing the barriers to buy Borland -- mainly the VS.NET
incompatibility -- widens the market. I'm not saying that Borland
will take 100% of the market, but it sure will increase the number of
customers willing to look at Borland's better offerings. Superior
functionality and productivity do make a difference to a lot of folks.
>2. "I thought Borland had gone out of business years ago?"
That is a totally different issue, but one I agree is still a factor.
Hence the tagline "Excellence Endures"
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
>However, I think borland can survive only if it offers multiplatform.
I personally don't see any money in multiplatform.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<NoSpamPlease@Somewhere> wrote:
>As long as you keep your UI and non UI code seperate enough then this
>shouldnt be so big an issue. i.e. write WinForms now, come Avalon you keep
>all your existing non UI assemblies and write some markup for the UI.
But the conversion is still
VCL -> Winforms -> Avalon
rather than
VCL -> Avalon.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
<joa...@btinternetXX.com> wrote:
>I sometimes wonder whether we should learn from nature, where predators
>often court their victims.
Well, I don't really view it that way. I don't see MS as the predator
here. A live and kicking Borland is quite valuable to them.
Nick Hodges (TeamB)
wrote:
>
>LOL! They are pleased as long as antitrust is watching them!
I do think that is part of it. But Java is a +major+ competitor for
them, so they are always happy to find allies in the field. It's
interesting that Borland also happens to be a big player in the Java
world, but that's not as big a concern to them as is the stuff Borland
is doing on the .Net side.
And remember, the anti-trust cops are +still+ looking at IBM, so don't
discount the longevity of that motivation for MS.