JBuilder 2007
insert name
Rod
> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/306356.htm
My comment: Stop JB. Force Delphi native on Win & Linux
insert name
I agree with you.
JB seems stillborn.
They should stop wasting resources on it and should focus on Delphi.
Lars Fosdal q
insert name <nospam@nospam> wrote:
IMO, that conclusion would be a bit premature. It remains to be seen
how the enterprice Java world respons. I usually don't monitor the
Java community - so I have no clue to who the author of that article
is.
That said - I fully agree on the "focus on Delphi" bit - but not
necessarily at the expense of JB.
Lars F.
Ray Porter
attractive upgrade prices for JBuilder 2007. I didn't dig too deeply since
I don't do primarily Java work but if the one can qualify for the upgrades
based on competing tools and the advantages offered are sufficient to
justify the upgrade price, maybe this isn't such a bad idea.
However, with so many free Java tools out there (NetBeans, JDeveloper,
etc.), it's difficult to see how a product that retails for $2K can really
compete. I'd much rather see CodeGear devote its resources to the BDS (or
whatever it is going to be called once CG gets their own brand out there)
than spend resources on a product that returns little or nothing. But then,
I have no idea what the actual numbers are and maybe JB is profitable enough
to justify the resources. Or maybe CG has plans for a new pricing scheme
that will make JB a viable alternative to some of the freeware.
Ray Porter
"Lars Fosdal" <Lars(q)Fosdal.com> wrote in message
news:jau2n2ddcg2iqr5bd...@4ax.com...
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)
> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/306356.htm
"I personally do not even have time to try it even if they'd given it to
me for free."
Really? Enough said...
So he didn't even try it out before spewing his garbage. Nice.
NOT!
--
Anders Ohlsson - http://blogs.borland.com/ao/
CodeGear Developer Relations
"A golf course that does not have a pub after the 18th hole
is like an acupuncturist who does not offer needle removal."
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)
> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/306356.htm
"I personally do not even have time to try it even if they'd given it to
me for free."
Really? Enough said...
So he didn't even try it out before making these comments. Nice.
Nathaniel L. Walker
that
offers many of the same capabilities that JBuilder offers, and therefore
doesn't
have the time to evaluate another product that costs $1,999, which is
an unthinkable price for many of "today's" Java developers.
I do believe the price (for the Enterprise Edition) has dropped a bit since
JBuilder 2006 (right?), but it's still steep enough.
Java Studio Enterprise/Creator and JDeveloper are both commercial-grade
IDEs available for free, and offering many of the same capabilities of
JBuilder 2007. I think the Java community is a bad place to market a
commercial enterprise-level IDE at those prices.
A reasonable comparison between the tool does kinda leave you in a
"WTF?!" state-of-mind.
I liked Primetime alot better than Eclipse <nostalgia />.
Is there a Foundation Edition available?
- Nate.
"Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)" <aohl...@codegear.com> wrote in message
news:4571c299$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Captain Jake
> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/306356.htm
Presumably, some people think the open source modeling and architecture stuff is crap. Those types might be the ones that Borland is addressing with
JBuilder 2007.
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3033
Nathaniel L. Walker
> architecture stuff is crap. Those types might be the ones that
> Borland is addressing with JBuilder 2007.
Sun Java Studio Enterprise (or NetBeans + Enterprise Pack)
Oracle JDeveloper
Have you used them?
Have you seen how much they cost? [Hint: Nothing]
I dunno how good JBuilder 2007 is (most probably really good), but JSE
had some of the best UML support available in a Java IDE. It was the
first commercial IDE to integrate team collaboration features into the IDE,
back in version 7'ish. Oracle JDeveloper was not far behind in the UML
department, but has better support for Web Development (Sun has Studio
Creator for that) and better refactoring support.
Both IDEs support multiple Application Servers.
For users who prefer to use an Eclipse base (and not JSE/NB or JDev),
there is MyEclipse Enterprise Workbench (http://www.myeclipseide.com)
for $29.95 a years. However, I will agree that JBuilder brings some nice
features to the Eclipse platform, like their collaboration, etc. Then
again,
I'm not sure what is in IBM's offering, cause it's so expensive that I never
cared to look at it.
You see, the problem is that Java is oversaturated with free/cheap
solutions.
- Nate.
Fritz Huber
> solutions.
Plus in the end, they all basically look and feel almost the same plus the
outcome is the same.
I think there would still be room for a native, snappy Java IDE. We are an
Oracle shop and some of our developer's use JDeveloper, but quite a few
prefer to use UltraEdit because JDeveloper is so bloated.
For me, the lean IDE was the main point for me to choose Delphi over VS back
when .NET was still beta (coming from C++).
There are quite a few developers around here who'd agree. I'd say about half
of them prefer snappiness over features.
Nothing worse than fighting your bloated IDE when you are under pressure to
get something out there.
But since after Delphi 7 nobody seems to take care of those people anymore,
even Borland switched to a bloated IDE.
Why doesn't anyone take advantage of this situation?
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)
> I think his point was that he is already using a development environment
> that offers many of the same capabilities that JBuilder offers
Right. I understand that he's writing us off just like some people that
are happy with VI or Emacs. And that's fine. But does he have to lower
the perception of JDJ by blogging like that?
Reminds me of my favorite quote from someone that came up to me at a
trade show a couple of years ago:
"I can't get any more productive!"
> and therefore
> doesn't have the time to evaluate another product that costs $1,999, which is
> an unthinkable price for many of "today's" Java developers.
I'm not an expert on pricing, but JBuilder 2007 packs the combined power
of JBuilder, Together, and Optimizeit. Not to mention a beautiful
integration to source code management, build management, requirements
management etc, etc. And all that at a far lower price than you could
get it all integrated in one package for before.
> A reasonable comparison between the tool does kinda leave you in a
> "WTF?!" state-of-mind.
Have you made a "reasonable" comparison?
> Is there a Foundation Edition available?
Stay tuned.
Nathaniel L. Walker
>> solutions.
>
> Plus in the end, they all basically look and feel almost the same plus the
> outcome is the same.
> I think there would still be room for a native, snappy Java IDE. We are an
> Oracle shop and some of our developer's use JDeveloper, but quite a few
> prefer to use UltraEdit because JDeveloper is so bloated.
Yes, but they have packages geared for what type of development you
do now, so they are trying to address the "bloat" feature. Overall, I
agree, however. Eclipse has also been criticized for not performing up
to par on Linux and Macintosh machines, so I wonder how that will
affect JBuilder. The Primetime IDE didn't have these problems.
> For me, the lean IDE was the main point for me to choose Delphi over VS
> back when .NET was still beta (coming from C++).
> There are quite a few developers around here who'd agree. I'd say about
> half of them prefer snappiness over features.
> Nothing worse than fighting your bloated IDE when you are under pressure
> to get something out there.
Agree, but you have to add at least some things to facilitate what you need
to
get the job done (Add-Ins, Components, Experts/Wizards, etc.).
> But since after Delphi 7 nobody seems to take care of those people
> anymore, even Borland switched to a bloated IDE.
> Why doesn't anyone take advantage of this situation?
I think people were getting to the point where they weren't willing to
license
two+ Borland development environments at the same price. Many developers
were still using Delphi and/or C++Builder for native development, but wanted
to use the "more standard" C# for .NET development.
Buying both Delphi/C++Builder and C#Builder Licenses (or all three) would
have been close to 10k (for Enterprise/Architect Editions). You can get VS
Team Suite + TFS Workgroup Edition (and some copies of VS Pro, if
upgrading) for that price.
They had to be competitive, and with the price of tools rising and rising,
they couldn't "afford" to keep them in separate IDEs, and the Kylix Solution
(Kylix for C++, Kylix for Delphi) wasn't optimal. They needed a new IDE,
and with that new IDE they introduced issues, because components that are
used by one environment aren't always used by others (Together, ECO, etc.).
They mitigated it somewhat by allowing you to work in a singular
personality,
but that isn't necessarily the most efficient way to work for those who use
more
than one language product in the Studio.
- Nate.
Nathaniel L. Walker
Nope, however I have used JBuilder 2005/2006 and know
what they offer. Most of what JBuilder 2007 offers is just
that ported to the Eclipse base, and a few extras. There
isn't a trial available atm, but when it is released I will do so :)
>> Is there a Foundation Edition available?
>
> Stay tuned.
Of course.
- Nate.
Chris Burrows
news:4571e384$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> For me, the lean IDE was the main point for me to choose Delphi over VS
> back when .NET was still beta (coming from C++).
> There are quite a few developers around here who'd agree. I'd say about
> half of them prefer snappiness over features.
> Nothing worse than fighting your bloated IDE when you are under pressure
> to get something out there.
>
> But since after Delphi 7 nobody seems to take care of those people
> anymore, even Borland switched to a bloated IDE.
> Why doesn't anyone take advantage of this situation?
I agree. I've become so disenchanted by these overly-complex systems that I
was recently driven to write my own ultra-lightweight IDE to see what it
would be like on the other side of the fence. It is written in, and designed
to be used with, Component Pascal for .NET 2.0:
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/cpide
It is *very* lean - not much more than a Windows Version of Turbo Pascal
v1.0, but significantly more useful than NotePad.
I'm really happy with the outcome. I can almost complete an edit - compile -
run cycle in the time it takes to get one of the bloated IDEs off the
ground. All that I really need now is a similarly-lightweight forms
designer.
Chris Burrows
CFB Software
http://www.cfbsoftware.com/gpcp
Michael Stum
> http://linux.sys-con.com/read/306356.htm
I think that the Author should rethink about his writing style, because
he just looks like a Forum troll to me.
I mean - even if he has a point (and he certainly has one) - the way he
writes it, he just seems dumb enough for me to ignore him.
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)
> isn't a trial available atm, but when it is released I will do so :)
Excellent!
John Jacobson
> Reminds me of my favorite quote from someone that came up to me at a
> trade show a couple of years ago:
>
> "I can't get any more productive!"
That reminds me of one luminary I once knew that bragged that he hadn't
opened a book or magazine on programming in several years. In fact he once
referred to someone else's carrying around a book as proof that they did not
know what they were doing.
John Jacobson
"Michael Stum" <dev...@stum.de> wrote in message
news:45721669$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
He struck me as quite idiotic, truth be told. The rube obviously does not
even understand basic economics if he thinks free is always better, and
won't even look at something that has a non-zero price.
John Jacobson
news:4571de00$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Have you used them?
> Have you seen how much they cost? [Hint: Nothing]
WRONG!!!!!!! They don't cost nothing. Just because their price is zero
doesn't mean they cost nothing.
> You see, the problem is that Java is oversaturated with free/cheap
> solutions.
No, the problem is that most developers are idiots when it comes to
economics and they think free means no cost.
Anyone who argues that they won't try something because it is not free
should never be given any decision-making capabilities. They will ruin any
project they control, because they do not comprehend the true nature of
cost.
Nathaniel L. Walker
The article was referring to the monetary cost of the tool, and
that is what I was referring to.
There are other costs involved (support, etc.), of course, but
even those costs are about half of what it takes to obtain the
programming tool and SKU referred to in the article (some
much less).
- Nate.
Nathaniel L. Walker
> even understand basic economics if he thinks free is always better, and
> won't even look at something that has a non-zero price.
He didn't say free was better, and TBH as far as free tools go, JDeveloper
and Sun Java Studio are a totally different "breed" of free tools <g> There
are also other *payware* tools like IntelliJ IDEA and MyEclipse Enterprise
Workbench that are available for 1/10 to 1/4th the cost of JBuilder. The
question was why on earth would someone market a Java IDE when their
business survives off of IDE sales at that price in a market saturated with
competition that is just as good.
They aren't giving away a baseline framework (i.e. IBM IRT Eclipse), they
are giving away full-fledged Enterprise Java IDEs offering much the same
functionality as that found in JBuilder (Collaboration, UML Round-Tripping,
Source Control Integration (CVS, Eclipse, VSS, Subversion, ClearCase,
more), Profiling, [Visual] Web Development, Integration with Application
Servers, etc.
I think the problem the author of the article was trying to make was why
someone would pay 2k for an IDE when there are free alternatives
out there offering much the same functionality (better in some areas); even
with the support contracts they are half the cost.
P.S. You sound like him, the way you write.
- Nate.
John Jacobson
> There are other costs involved (support, etc.), of course, but
> even those costs are about half of what it takes to obtain the
> programming tool and SKU referred to in the article (some
> much less).
No, they can be several times larger, when you include the *total cost* of
using the tool. I don't know whether or not JBuilder has the higher cost or
not when you look at the total cost, I just know that anybody that refuses
to look at a product simply because it is has a non-zero monetary price is
an idiot, pure and simple. They should not be spreading their idiocy to
others by committing technical journalism, nor should they be making any
decisions.
The total cost of using a product can be quite high relative to the monetary
price, because of the value of the user's time.
If you are paying a programmer $60/hr for example, and one product will make
him 2% more productive, you've just cost yourself 40 hours in a year by
choosing the other product. That's $2400 in just one year saved by using
that product. If the product cost only $2000 more than the other, you still
save $400 in that first year by using it instead of the cheaper one.
As that example shows, you can not tell whether or not a product is the
better financial choice just by looking at the price. Even a small
difference in the resulting productivity of a programmer can outsize the
monetary price. The author of the article quoted in the OP was simply
ignorant, pure and simple.
John Jacobson
"Nathaniel L. Walker" <NatLW...@NoEmail.Hah> wrote in message
>> He struck me as quite idiotic, truth be told. The rube obviously does not
>> even understand basic economics if he thinks free is always better, and
>> won't even look at something that has a non-zero price.
>
> He didn't say free was better,
He implied it.
> and TBH as far as free tools go, JDeveloper
> and Sun Java Studio are a totally different "breed" of free tools <g>
> There
> are also other *payware* tools like IntelliJ IDEA and MyEclipse Enterprise
> Workbench that are available for 1/10 to 1/4th the cost of JBuilder. The
> question was why on earth would someone market a Java IDE when their
> business survives off of IDE sales at that price in a market saturated
> with
> competition that is just as good.
That's where the author of the article quoted in the OP revealed himself to
be an idiot. He never tried JBuilder so how does he know if it is just as
good, worse or better? He doesn't, and as I showed in my otherpost, even a
very small difference in productivity will outsize the price in it's
financial impact on the bottom line.
David M
<NatLW...@NoEmail.Hah> wrote:
>He didn't say free was better,
But he did say "It looks like Borland could not find a buyer for their
IDE division" and "I personally do not even have time to try it even
if they'd given it to me for free." which sounds like he does not
understand the true cost of owenership.
Cheers
D
David Moorhouse
Moorhouse Works ltd
www.moorhouse.co.nz
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> He didn't say free was better..
Yeah, he was saying charging for a tool is "stupid" when there are free
alternatives, and made no comparison of total cost or functionality,
because he couldn't be bothered.
Beats me how someone who wrote that is a multi-award winning Java
author and educator.
<now waiting for my awards to roll in>
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Chris Burrows
news:4572c942$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> Yeah, he was saying charging for a tool is "stupid" when there are free
> alternatives, and made no comparison of total cost or functionality,
> because he couldn't be bothered.
>
> Beats me how someone who wrote that is a multi-award winning Java
> author and educator.
>
Possibly because he *is* an author an educator and not an economist or
accountant. He would not necessarily measure his time in $$$ to the same
degree as a commercial programmer might have to. A mistake he might have
made is assuming that others have the same luxury as he has.
--
Holger Flick
> "I personally do not even have time to try it even if they'd given it
> to me for free."
>
> So he didn't even try it out before making these comments. Nice.
Exactly. He really bases his comments on experience and facts...only
not :-)
--
Q Correll
| Anyone who argues that they won't try something because it is not
| free should never be given any decision-making capabilities. They
| will ruin any project they control, because they do not comprehend
| the true nature of cost.
Boy, have you got THAT right!!!
--
Q
12/04/2006 10:39:37
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
marc hoffman
> That reminds me of one luminary I once knew that bragged that he hadn't
> opened a book or magazine on programming in several years. In fact he once
> referred to someone else's carrying around a book as proof that they did not
> know what they were doing.
or of that guy who claimed no-one needed new language features (such as,
say, generics) because he was doing just fine with what he had now, and
therefor anything on top of that must be useless.
i forgot who that was, do you remember...?
;)
--
marc
Captain Jake
> or of that guy who claimed no-one needed new language features (such as,
> say, generics) because he was doing just fine with what he had now, and
> therefor anything on top of that must be useless.
>
> i forgot who that was, do you remember...?
That guy used C# 2.0 to write a DFM and PAS parser this past year, and used generics quite extensively. So, while I remember the guy, I wonder if you
would recognize him these days (in the abstract sense, since you obviously never saw me in person).
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3040
marc hoffman
>> i forgot who that was, do you remember...?
>
> That guy used C# 2.0 to write a DFM and PAS parser this past year, and used generics quite extensively. So, while I remember the guy, I wonder if you
> would recognize him these days (in the abstract sense, since you obviously never saw me in person).
that's great - i am happy for him!
seriously.
--
marc
Diego
>> Presumably, some people think the open source modeling and
>> architecture stuff is crap. Those types might be the ones that
>> Borland is addressing with JBuilder 2007.
>
> Sun Java Studio Enterprise (or NetBeans + Enterprise Pack)
> Oracle JDeveloper
>
> Have you used them?
> Have you seen how much they cost? [Hint: Nothing]
>
Yeah, JBuilder may have the same fate as Kylix. It's a case where either
the existing free tools are very good, or the coders are sandal wearing
hippies who don't want to pay for anything.
I say dump JBuilder, like Kylix was, and concentrate on Delphi. Even
forget about C++.
insert name
Borland have wisely decided to do just this.
They are just a bit shy to admit what they have done.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Borland have wisely decided to do just this.
> They are just a bit shy to admit what they have done.
Well, technically Borland has, yes.
But it is a completely false to say that CodeGear has "dumped" C++.
Nothing could be farther from the truth.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
Captain Jake
> Captain,
>
> >
> > That guy used C# 2.0 to write a DFM and PAS parser this past year, and used generics quite extensively. So, while I remember the guy, I wonder if you
> > would recognize him these days (in the abstract sense, since you obviously never saw me in person).
>
> that's great - i am happy for him!
>
> seriously.
Don't worry. The guy's still an idiot. <g>
--
***Free Your Mind***
Posted with JSNewsreader Preview 0.9.7.3045
Captain Jake
> But it is a completely false to say that CodeGear has "dumped" C++.
> Nothing could be farther from the truth.
One thing that would be nice on the C++ side of things would be the ability to open and compile projects intended for g++, without needing to tweak
anything. I often find code samples in C++ that it would make no sense to convert to Delphi. Usually these are written for Visual C++ or g++.
jeffc
IntelliJ is $500 and easier to justify. CodeGear is still thinking like
Borland and at $2000, the product may be good, but $1500 better then
IntelliJ???
I think they need to rethink their pricing and fast. They will sell more
copies and it will be easier in Eclipse based shops to convince a manager
to invest $500 so you can use another IDE, then to try an convince him to
spend $2000 on unknown ROI.
I think another company that can illustrate making money on enhancing open
source is BEA WebLogic. In fact their new company tagline is talking about
the "blending" of open source with their tools.
At my company which is a large top 3 bank and a Java shop, we used Borland
JBuilder for several years and really liked it. Then the ALM drain fiasco
happened where profits in IDE tools went elsewhere and several IDE
releases showed very little innovation. It was unfortunate because at
that time IntelliJ and Eclipse's refactoring and other great features were
becoming known and those IDEs were making great advances. And what
happened at my company is that developers were able to convince management
to try a few licences of IntelliJ since it was only $500 vs the normal
$2000 price tag of JBuilder Enterprise. The rest is history. We have
totally dropped JBuilder bank wide and now you can pick Eclipse or
IntelliJ for use. I am sure the bank loves the savings and the developers
love the productivity.
So the times are changing in that market for Java IDE's and pricing. Will
CodeGear make the change? Should they? I think the market will dictate
their success or failure. Hopefully the ship changes direction before it
hits that iceberg.
--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com
jeffc
Java IDE area. And there is money to be made in that market even though
open source options exist.
But at that price point, its going to be a difficult sell and not give it
the opportunity to nudge itself into a group or corporation that is
already using widespread use of other Java IDEs. Like IntelliJ was able
to due at the Bank were I work at.
I think the feature list for JBuilder 2007 does look great to me and since
its based on Eclipse is another plus.
Again I think they are going to need to market it well. Feature matrixes
that show how it matches IntelliJ and other IDEs feature for feature and
adds a few of its own. This way developers can eyeball and see it it is a
good match for what they do.
For example, I am converting an app from Borland Enterprise Server to BEA
WebLogic and the feature to create XDoclet from the descriptors
automatically would be great for me since XDoclet can the generate both
the BES and BEA xml descriptor files. Then making migration easier.
One of the benefits of JBuilder now being on Eclipse based IDE framework
is that their IDE automatically supports open source frameworks out of the
box as they come along (i.e. Spring, Hibernate, etc). Which would not
neccessary be possible in their own IDE framework. And this is where I
worry that Delphi.NET IDE may suffer since we cannot use all those .NET
plugins, etc in BDS. This may or may not be that big of an issue. But it
certainly would be nice to have a CodeRush for BDS.
Pete Fraser
129GBP to 649GBP which sound quite reasonable to me.
Rgds Pete
"jeffc" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:45772eca$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
jeffc
IntelliJ
$499 new user
$299 upgrade
http://www.jetbrains.com/idea/
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Don't worry. The guy's still an idiot. <g>
Hmmm... I guess we can make an exception to the rule against personal
attacks in this case. :)
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
How to ask questions the smart way:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Brad White
in message news:45784426$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Captain Jake wrote:
>
>> Don't worry. The guy's still an idiot. <g>
>
> Hmmm... I guess we can make an exception to the rule against personal
> attacks in this case. :)
>
Well that sure doesn't seem right.
This is a personal attack if ever there was one.
or
If this isn't a personal attack, I can't imagine what is.
8:-)
On the other hand, if he's right, then he wouldn't know
he was violating the rules and we should let it slide.
On the third hand, I'm not sure he's really saying that.
Sounds to me more like he is just quoting someone else,
Forrest Gump style.
Never mind. I'll just trust your judgement to do the right
thing, and I'll stay out of it.
--
Confused,
Brad.