Reasons for upgrading from BCB2006 to BCB2007?

Vaclav Cechura

unread,

Nov 8, 2007, 6:51:21 AM11/8/07

to

I would like to ask people who already upgraded from BCB2006
to BCB2007 to share their reasons for the upgrade and if the
upgrade satisfied this reasons?

Vaclav

Eelke

unread,

Nov 8, 2007, 10:00:17 AM11/8/07

to

Vaclav Cechura schreef:

> I would like to ask people who already upgraded from BCB2006
> to BCB2007 to share their reasons for the upgrade and if the
> upgrade satisfied this reasons?

It might be very interesting to know why people didn't upgrade. For
instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1
failure for 2006).

Eelke

Vaclav Cechura

unread,

Nov 8, 2007, 9:23:40 AM11/8/07

to

Eelke <e.k...@remove.mplussoftware.nl> wrote:
>For
>instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1
>failure for 2006).

What about the "Improved Bosst support" stated in the BCB2007
datasheet?

Vaclav

David Dean [CodeGear]

unread,

Nov 8, 2007, 8:23:31 PM11/8/07

to

In article <473329fc$1...@newsgroups.borland.com>,
"Vaclav Cechura" <n@s.p> wrote:

> What about the "Improved Bosst support" stated in the BCB2007
> datasheet?

I did at one time list the places where we improved, and at the same
time, I listed the places where we had regressions. Most of those
regressions were fixed by update 3, but a couple still remain. I really
did mean to blog about it...
--
David Dean (CodeGear)
Lead C++ QA Engineer

David Dean [CodeGear]

unread,

Nov 8, 2007, 8:27:51 PM11/8/07

to

In article <david.dean.no-3A4...@nothing.attdns.com>,

"David Dean [CodeGear]" <david....@spam.codegear.com> wrote:

> > It might be very interesting to know why people didn't upgrade. For
> > instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1
> > failure for 2006).
>

> Which version of boost? In my testing of 1.34, variant has no
> regressions.

(Although I do show 4 failures for 5.6.4, 5.8.2, and 5.9.2)

David Dean [CodeGear]

unread,

Nov 8, 2007, 8:26:07 PM11/8/07

to

In article <4733246f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com>,
Eelke <e.k...@remove.mplussoftware.nl> wrote:

> It might be very interesting to know why people didn't upgrade. For
> instance boost::variant has more failed tests (4 failures for 2007, 1
> failure for 2006).

Which version of boost? In my testing of 1.34, variant has no
regressions.

Leo Siefert

unread,

Nov 9, 2007, 8:20:16 AM11/9/07

to

For me the biggest reason is the improvements in the IDE stability and
speed. Build time is _much_ faster than in BDS2006 and there is also a
quite noticeable improvement in Code Insight functions - now the only
one that I keep set to manual is Tooltip Symbol Insight. In addition,
many day-to-day irritations from BDS are now gone and the general
experience of programming is more pleasant.

Another reason that is very significant for me is the fact that I like
the changes I have seen in Borland/CodeGear over the past couple of
years and I really want to give them some support and to demonstrate
that these changes affect their bottom line. It seems that they are
now both more forthcoming with their own plans for the products and
more willing to listen to their customers than in the past.

- Leo

Vaclav Cechura

unread,

Nov 9, 2007, 7:54:09 AM11/9/07

to

Leo Siefert <lIHATESP...@senate.michigan.gov> wrote:
>For me the biggest reason is the improvements in the IDE
>stability and speed.

That would be a reason for me too.

>Another reason that is very significant for me is the fact that I like
>the changes I have seen in Borland/CodeGear over the past couple of
>years and I really want to give them some support and to demonstrate
>that these changes affect their bottom line.

This is what I would also like to do, but the fact that I
upgraded to BCB2006 Enterprise from BCB6 Professional in the
end of the year 2006 may be an agrument against an upgrade this
year.

Vaclav