ECO, Delphi, Codegear, and CapableObjects
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
http://dn.codegear.com/article/36723
and then I blogged about it:
http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges/archive/2007/07/09/37099.aspx
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> This robbing of Borland shareholders is not good.
Not sure what you mean by that....
Brian Moelk
> I posted this article this morning:
>
> http://dn.codegear.com/article/36723
>
> and then I blogged about it:
>
> http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges/archive/2007/07/09/37099.aspx
Where's my nemesis? They went even further than I thought they would. :)
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
bmo...@NObrainSPAMendeavorFOR.MEcom
James Miller
James Miller
> Not sure what you mean by that....
I mean, the assets were given away to some startup without
approval of and without any compensation to Borland
shareholders: management buyout style.
James Miller
http://dn.codegear.com/article/36723
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> I mean, the assets were given away to some startup without
> approval of and without any compensation to Borland
> shareholders: management buyout style.
James -- I'm afraid that you don't know what you are talking about.
The assets were not given away.
Ben
"James Miller" <noe...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:46927084$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Do you have proof of this?
Anders Ohlsson (CodeGear)
> I mean, the assets were given away
How do you know they were given away?
--
Anders Ohlsson - http://blogs.codegear.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."
m. Th.
> I posted this article this morning:
>
> http://dn.codegear.com/article/36723
>
> and then I blogged about it:
>
> http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges/archive/2007/07/09/37099.aspx
>
Logical move, imho, if you (will) have a Win32 alternative for this. Anyway, kudos
for your move.
--
m. th.
James Miller
> How do you know they were given away?
Well, the ECO technology ether belongs to
Borland or to "a venture backed startup
located in Stockholm, Sweden."
So, which is it?
Ben
"James Miller" <noe...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
I read the same article and there's no proof of what you say. Did I miss a
FAQ entry on "How is CodeGear trying to screw over Borland shareholders?"
:-)
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Well, the ECO technology ether belongs to
> Borland or to "a venture backed startup
> located in Stockholm, Sweden."
>
> So, which is it?
From TFA:
"They have licensed the ECO technology from us, and are going to be
taking it forward, separate from us."
I take this to mean that CodeGear owns the rights to the technology.
Otherwise Nick wouldn't/shouldn't have used the word "licensed."
Moreover, the term strongly implies (but doesn't prove) that it wasn't
a "free" transaction.
Now I'm admittedly reading tea leaves here, but it does at least
suggest that one should wait to make a stink over things until one is
confident that Nick is wrong. And I'm not confident about that.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Borland newsgroup denizen Sergio González has a new CD of
Irish music out, and it's good: http://tinyurl.com/7hgfr
Rich Davis
It covers that very clearly in the FAQ for the CDN article that you
linked to earlier.
"Q: Is ECO still a CodeGear technology?
A: Yes, ECO was developed by CodeGear and remains a CodeGear technology;
however thru this partnership CodeGear has entrusted the continued
development and innovation of ECO to CapableObjects who will be taking
the technology to the next level and to additional markets."
Rich
Brandon Staggs
> This robbing of Borland shareholders is not good.
Huh? What do you think this means: "They have licensed the ECO
technology from us"
--
Brandon Staggs
http://www.swordsearcher.com
http://www.studylamp.com
http://www.brandonstaggs.com
James Miller
Ok, I am sorry, my bad, then. It would be very
reassuring to know, in this case, what we got
back for it.
Kyle A. Miller
> I posted this article this morning:
>
> http://dn.codegear.com/article/36723
>
> and then I blogged about it:
>
> http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges/archive/2007/07/09/37099.aspx
Even if sold off for a price, I can't say I am happy about this. The
engineers, the ALM tools (I use modeling and version control tools.),
the IDE personalities, the technologies. Anything left?
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
> "CapableObjects is a venture backed startup..."
>
> This robbing of Borland shareholders is not good.
To whatever extent Borland has a legitimate say in such a divestiture, they
would *obviously* have to be consulted before any such deal could be legally
made, therefore your claim cannot be correct and your concern is
unnecessary.
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"Nurture your mind with great thoughts. To believe in the heroic makes
heroes." — Benjamin Disraeli
Jeff Hamblin
"James Miller" :
From the blog:
"The ECO team has formed a new business called
CapableObjects. They have licensed the ECO
technology from us..."
So it has been licensed, which implies some sort
of payment structure. It seems like that should have
been mentioned in the article.
-Jeff Hamblin
Frans van Daalen
"Craig Stuntz [TeamB]" <craig_...@nospam.please [a.k.a. acm.org]> wrote
in message news:4692...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> From TFA:
>
> "They have licensed the ECO technology from us, and are going to be
> taking it forward, separate from us."
>
> I take this to mean that CodeGear owns the rights to the technology.
> Otherwise Nick wouldn't/shouldn't have used the word "licensed."
>
> Moreover, the term strongly implies (but doesn't prove) that it wasn't
> a "free" transaction.
>
> Now I'm admittedly reading tea leaves here, but it does at least
> suggest that one should wait to make a stink over things until one is
> confident that Nick is wrong. And I'm not confident about that.
>
Using some of those tea leaves I guess the following happend
1) The eco team was not happy about the direction and budget allocated
2) The ECO team went looking for some VC to see if some-one would help on
this (partial) buy-out
3) They found one and left CodeGear
4) CodeGear management comes up with some marketing blablabla "This
partnership is a plus for developers, CodeGear, and CapableObjects," says
Michael Swindell, Vice President of Products at CodeGear"
The good part of this story is that somehow some parts of the CodeGear can
attract money from VC's. That is good news for those who would still like to
see CodeGear being "disconnected" from Borland.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> So, which is it?
It belongs to us.
James Miller
>
> It belongs to us.
Great. Sorry for the confusion. Thank you for clearing it up.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> I can't say I am happy about this.
What makes you unhappy? Nothing from the customer perspective should
change.
Brion L. Webster
>Even if sold off for a price, I can't say I am happy about this. The
>engineers, the ALM tools (I use modeling and version control tools.), the
>IDE personalities, the technologies. Anything left?
If anything that happened during the Inprise/ALM era is automatically
"bad", look for more. Who knows, perhaps CodeWright will rise up from the
grave.
Interesting to see public comments on the blog from May 10th, and the
first blog post on February 27th. CodeGear's known about this for a long
time.
I wonder if Delphi 2009 will have any .NET elements at all. Or if ECO V
will support Delphi. VS is a much more lucrative market for an
independant company.
--
-Brion
There's no such thing as 'one, true way;'
- Mercedes Lackey
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
Your speculation is completely wrong.
Kyle A. Miller
> What makes you unhappy? Nothing from the customer perspective should
> change.
It's one sign of many of a reality which I wish didn't exist. A better
question would be what would make me happy. The answer to that question
is nested in the thought of whether the ECO crew would be moving to
other markets if the Delphi IDE and market could sufficiently support
their efforts. This action says more than words.
Sarah
> "Q: Is ECO still a CodeGear technology?
>
> A: Yes, ECO was developed by CodeGear and remains a CodeGear technology;
> however thru this partnership CodeGear has entrusted the continued
> development and innovation of ECO to CapableObjects who will be taking
> the technology to the next level and to additional markets."
>
I am glad they found some capable hands to help in developing the product.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> This action says more than words.
I completely agree -- it says that we believe ECO is a powerful
technology that should have the room to expand into new markets.
I'm not sure why that would be viewed as a bad thing.
Kyle A. Miller
> I wonder if Delphi 2009 will have any .NET elements at all. Or if
> ECO V will support Delphi. VS is a much more lucrative market for an
> independant company.
And has just become more lucrative.
I agree with your wondering. .NET support might be the next CLX.
Sometimes I think Borland/CodeGear is a technology playboy, love'em and
leave'em. 3 report solutions, 3 VCS solutions, 3 DB engine solutions, 3
(4, 5, 6... lost count) web solutions, 3 (2, 1... 0?) .NET solutions. 1
and then 0 data pivot solutions. 1 and now apparently 0 modeling
solutions. I still miss the abandoned Data Dictionary feature. An
object persistent framework for Win32 is frozen in time with no promise
to resurrect.
Kyle A. Miller
> I completely agree -- it says that we believe ECO is a powerful
> technology that should have the room to expand into new markets.
>
> I'm not sure why that would be viewed as a bad thing.
Is Delphi (language & VCL) powerful?
If it's such a good thing, then why did CodeGear let it leave the nest?
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Or if ECO V will support Delphi.
They pretty much explicitly say it will.
> VS is a much more lucrative market
> for an independant company.
Yup. And ISTR that CodeGear (then Borland) couldn't make VS plugins
due to their licensing of some MS technologies. Wonder if that's
different for an "independent" spinout?
Now we have "Capable Objects" and item #2 on their list (#1 being keep
supporting Delphi) seems to be supporting VS. So one doesn't really
have to speculate very hard about why a spinoff makes sense.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Everything You Need to Know About InterBase Character Sets:
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/articles/403.aspx
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> I am glad they found some capable hands to help in developing the
> product.
IOW: The same people who always worked on it.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Want to help make Delphi and InterBase better? Use QC!
http://qc.borland.com -- Vote for important issues
Dean Hill
> I posted this article this morning:
>
> http://dn.codegear.com/article/36723
>
> and then I blogged about it:
>
> http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges/archive/2007/07/09/37099.aspx
This is brilliant news. ECO will live on it's own and instead of
drawing funding from Delphi will help the CG bottom line. I think this
will be a very good future product line.
--
Dean
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
> The answer to that
> question is nested in the thought of whether the ECO crew would be
> moving to other markets if the Delphi IDE and market could
> sufficiently support their efforts.
So if GM could just sell enough Corvettes, they wouldn't have need or desire
to build sedans, compacts, pick-ups, SUVs, etc?
Even if the Delphi market were *as big* as the VS market, why would there
not still be a desire to *also* make money from the VS market if it's
feasible to target it?
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others
as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse
pulling the wagon." - Winston Churchill
Dean Hill
> Even if the Delphi market were *as big* as the VS market, why would
> there not still be a desire to also make money from the VS market if
> it's feasible to target it?
DevEx have been building products for both the VS and Delphi markets
for a long time. I think it's about time some of the cool things can
start to help fund Delphi instead of drawing from it (like ALM).
--
Dean
Dean Hill
> Is Delphi (language & VCL) powerful?
>
> If it's such a good thing, then why did CodeGear let it leave the
> nest?
Because there are probably 100 times more VS users then Rad Studio
users and it makes sense to tap into that market.
--
Dean
Kyle A. Miller
> Because there are probably 100 times more VS users then Rad Studio
> users and it makes sense to tap into that market.
Then release Eco for VS as a CodeGear product if you must go that
route.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Then release Eco for VS as a CodeGear product if you must go that
> route.
It's not at all clear that this is possible, based on previous
statements WRT Borland's license with MS.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
All the great TeamB service you've come to expect plus (New!)
Irish Tin Whistle tips: http://learningtowhistle.blogspot.com
Dean Hill
But ECO is still a CG product. It's just licensed to another company
for development and sales. I am sure there are some nice clauses
indicating that if things go badly, they can pull it back. I also have
a feeling there may be some complications preventing CG from releasing
a product that competes with an MS Product (Delphi) and them also
having access to the API's for VS. MS likes to have non-compete
clauses just look at the Ribbon licensing.
--
Dean
Kyle A. Miller
> So if GM could just sell enough Corvettes, they wouldn't have need or
> desire to build sedans, compacts, pick-ups, SUVs, etc?
You are probably right. If they sold enough high dollar sports cars,
they would probably not care to manufacture "lesser" vehicles in order
to maintain the name plate.
Seriously, has the Delphi market ever been larger than the VS market? I
don't recall such a time in Delphi history. VS has always had a larger
user base. Yet, this fact did not stop Borland from keeping its best
technologies for its tools.
Kyle A. Miller
> It's not at all clear that this is possible, based on previous
> statements WRT Borland's license with MS.
Reality says otherwise. Together for VS. Caliber for VS. StarTeam for
VS.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Craig Stuntz [TeamB] submitted this idea :
> > It's not at all clear that this is possible, based on previous
> > statements WRT Borland's license with MS.
>
> Reality says otherwise. Together for VS. Caliber for VS. StarTeam for
> VS.
I'm aware that those products exist, but I'm not aware of what the
license agreement says. Therefore, I can't draw conclusions about it
other than a general assumption that the more informed folks who
comment on the license aren't liars.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Useful articles about InterBase development:
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/category/21.aspx
Kyle A. Miller
> have a feeling there may be some complications preventing CG from
> releasing a product that competes with an MS Product (Delphi) and
> them also having access to the API's for VS. MS likes to have
> non-compete clauses just look at the Ribbon licensing.
What object persistent framework is Microsoft selling today?
Kyle A. Miller
> I'm aware that those products exist, but I'm not aware of what the
> license agreement says. Therefore, I can't draw conclusions about it
> other than a general assumption that the more informed folks who
> comment on the license aren't liars.
Just because what is said doesn't agree with what is happening doesn't
make you or anyone else a liar. Please don't imply I said that.
It seems to me if something could be worked out for those products,
something for ECO could have been worked out. Microsoft would be more
than happy to have more in the VS party. There are already commercial
OPF solutions available for VS. It would seem unfair to restrict
CodeGear and not restrict the other vendors.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Please don't imply I said that.
I didn't. I just told you how I draw my own conclusions. You aren't
required to agree with me.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Please read and follow Borland's rules for the user of their
server: http://support.borland.com/entry.jspa?externalID=293
Kyle A. Miller
> I didn't. I just told you how I draw my own conclusions. You aren't
> required to agree with me.
Ok, noted. Just wanted to make sure you and viewing public know I
wasn't calling anyone a liar.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Is Delphi (language & VCL) powerful?
Yes, of course.
> If it's such a good thing, then why did CodeGear let it leave the
> nest?
I'm not following your logic here, sorry.
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
> Wayne Niddery [TeamB] explained on 7/9/2007 :
>> So if GM could just sell enough Corvettes, they wouldn't have need or
>> desire to build sedans, compacts, pick-ups, SUVs, etc?
>
> You are probably right. If they sold enough high dollar sports cars,
> they would probably not care to manufacture "lesser" vehicles in order
> to maintain the name plate.
Are you serious? There's no such thing as a "lesser" product in that sense,
what matters is the potential profit and ROI. If they can make an acceptable
margin from those "lessor" vehicles, then it would make no sense to NOT go
after that market.
> Seriously, has the Delphi market ever been larger than the VS market?
> I don't recall such a time in Delphi history. VS has always had a
> larger user base. Yet, this fact did not stop Borland from keeping
> its best technologies for its tools.
Delphi is a *competitor* to other IDEs, CodeGear must persuade customers to
use it *instead of or in addition to* VS. ECO is complimentary to *both*,
that's a fundamental difference that provides an *additional* potential for
profit. The idea that they should *limit* themselves to just Delphi - no
matter how big a market Delphi had - makes no sense. *EVEN IF* Delphi were
bigger than VS, it would still make sense to also go after VS! How is this
hard to understand??
Do you apply the same logic to InterBase? Should IB be made to *only* work
with Delphi on the notion that the Delphi market should be big enough for
it? I don't understand such an idea *at all*.
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no
vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of
justice is no virtue!" - Barry Goldwater
Dejan at dot
There are many things to gain, and none (when one's rational, of course) to
lose.
LP,
Dejan
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
> Reality says otherwise. Together for VS. Caliber for VS. StarTeam for
> VS.
All three of which remain with *Borland* which is no longer in the IDE
business. One of the reasons to spin off CodeGear from Borland's POV would
be precisely that it frees them from restrictions due to competing with VS.
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
SpaceShipOne; GovernmentZero
Kyle A. Miller
> Are you serious? There's no such thing as a "lesser" product in that
> sense, what matters is the potential profit and ROI. If they can make
It depends on your market, your brand, and your product.
> Delphi is a *competitor* to other IDEs, CodeGear must persuade
> customers to use it *instead of or in addition to* VS. ECO is
> complimentary to *both*, that's a fundamental difference that
> provides an *additional* potential for profit. The idea that they
> should *limit* themselves to just Delphi - no matter how big a market
> Delphi had - makes no sense. *EVEN IF* Delphi were bigger than VS, it
> would still make sense to also go after VS! How is this hard to
> understand??
ECO is not an IDE. I was referring to the technologies Delphi has
delivered over the years being reserved just for Delphi in spite of a
larger VS market. VS has always been a lucrative market. So why the
sudden interest? Why weren't winning Delphi technologies sold to the VS
market in the past?
> Do you apply the same logic to InterBase? Should IB be made to *only*
> work with Delphi on the notion that the Delphi market should be big
> enough for it? I don't understand such an idea *at all*.
If Interbase was a feather in Delphi's cap, I would say yes. But, it's
not and never was. It's a database.
Kyle A. Miller
> Kyle A. Miller wrote:
>
>> Is Delphi (language & VCL) powerful?
>
> Yes, of course.
As I've been told in this thread, ECO is being spun off because
a) It's powerful.
b) It can benefit financially from the VS market.
c) CodeGear can commit more resources to Delphi, especially the
language and VCL.
It seems all of these reasons could equally apply to Delphi being a VS
plug-in. This thread indicates the many benefits of Delphi being a VS
product. They far outweigh any negative points.
>> If it's such a good thing, then why did CodeGear let it leave the
>> nest?
>
> I'm not following your logic here, sorry.
It would seem if it is such a good thing, CodeGear would sell it as VS
product without spinning it off. If it's as profitable as some say it
will be, it seems you would want to keep it in-house.
Kyle A. Miller
> One of the reasons to spin off CodeGear from Borland's
> POV would be precisely that it frees them from restrictions due to
> competing with VS.
So Borland spun-off CodeGear so it could sell MS competing products for
VS? This is the first I've heard of that. Is that your opinion or
known, sourced fact?
Also, Borland was selling VS products before the intent to sell the
tools off was mentioned.
Lastly, CodeGear is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of Borland. I am
not lawyer, but I wouldn't think having separate financials entitles a
company to be legally off-the-hook from its parent company or vice
versa.
Marco Sangali
(this is a marketing challenge more than a technical one, IMHO), it will
have the resources to move forward faster - which would benefit Delphi
users.
Regards,
Marco
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> This thread indicates the many benefits of Delphi being a VS product
Of course they're all moot if it isn't even possible for that to happen.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> Lastly, CodeGear is still a wholly-owned subsidiary of Borland. I am
> not lawyer, but I wouldn't think having separate financials entitles
> a company to be legally off-the-hook from its parent company or vice
> versa.
IANAL either, however I strongly doubt that creating wholly owned
subsidiaries alone allows companies to avoid compete restrictions if
the company still owns the product in question.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Kyle A. Miller
> IANAL either, however I strongly doubt that creating wholly owned
> subsidiaries alone allows companies to avoid compete restrictions if
> the company still owns the product in question.
I addressed this in another branch in this thread. See branch with
Craig.
Michael Swindell (CodeGear)
>
> 1) The eco team was not happy about the direction and budget allocated
> 2) The ECO team went looking for some VC to see if some-one would help on
> this (partial) buy-out
> 3) They found one and left CodeGear
> 4) CodeGear management comes up with some marketing blablabla "This
> partnership is a plus for developers, CodeGear, and CapableObjects," says
> Michael Swindell, Vice President of Products at CodeGear"
All 4 are "guesses" are totally incorrect. The FAQ is pretty clear on our
intent. We felt that the technology could do more go more places if the team
behind it were a stand alone entity driven by entrepeneurialship. It's as
pure and simple as that. We feel that ECO is a great Delphi technology, but
it can go in more directions, some that may even possibly be competetive
with our current products. ECO remains CodeGear's technology, but Capable
Objects is our close development partner (and good friends) and will be
doing some exciting things with ECO both within Delphi and hopefully in
other environments as well.
Those are the facts... not as exciting or provacative as the
"speculation"... but whatever... All we can do is say it like it is. Sigh...
-Michael
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
>
> So Borland spun-off CodeGear so it could sell MS competing products
> for VS? This is the first I've heard of that. Is that your opinion or
> known, sourced fact?
Fully 100% my speculation as to *one possible factor*, not the main or
necesarily even a large factor. *IF* there was any issue with those ALM
products as a result of the IDE business competing with VS (I don't actually
think there would be, but its possible) then the spin off would have that
benefit.
In the case of ECO, its a little different. The other mentioned ALM tools
have always been products in their own right and were sold as such before
Borland acquired them. ECO has been perceived to be an integral part of
Delphi, i.e. part and parcel to the IDE, and that is reasonable given that
it has *only* worked as part of the Delphi IDE to date (as its predecessor,
BOLD, though a 3rd party then, also only worked with Delphi). So for that
reason, spinning it off makes it clear that it stands apart from the Delphi
IDE as a separate product and therefore ensures that MS cannot perceive it
as part of a comepting IDE, thus disqualifying it from being able to use the
VS support for plug-ins (VSIP).
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"If there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively
calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free
thought - not free thought for those who agree with us, but freedom for
the thought that we hate." - Oliver Wendell Holmes
Kyle A. Miller
> In the case of ECO, its a little different. The other mentioned ALM tools
> have always been products in their own right and were sold as such before
> Borland acquired them. ECO has been perceived to be an integral part of
> Delphi, i.e. part and parcel to the IDE, and that is reasonable given that it
> has *only* worked as part of the Delphi IDE to date (as its predecessor,
> BOLD, though a 3rd party then, also only worked with Delphi). So for that
> reason, spinning it off makes it clear that it stands apart from the Delphi
> IDE as a separate product and therefore ensures that MS cannot perceive it as
> part of a comepting IDE, thus disqualifying it from being able to use the VS
> support for plug-ins (VSIP).
That is one heck of a forward flip, double somersault, and half gainer
twist. Quite a speculation. I can't say I buy it, but if true, then the
wrong company was spun-off. ECO should remain CodeGear and the IDE
tools should have become CapableObjects.
Dennis Landi
"Nick Hodges (CodeGear)" <nick....@codegear.com> wrote in message
news:46928336$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Kyle A. Miller wrote:
>
>> This action says more than words.
>
> I completely agree -- it says that we believe ECO is a powerful
> technology that should have the room to expand into new markets.
>
I think its great to see ECO expand into new markets.
Questoin: As it expands into new markets will Codegear get a share of the
revenue? This is usually the case when a company owns the technology...
-d
Dennis Landi
"Dennis Landi" <na...@nada.com> wrote in message
news:4693...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>
> "Nick Hodges (CodeGear)" <nick....@codegear.com> wrote in message
> news:46928336$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> Kyle A. Miller wrote:
>>
>>> This action says more than words.
>>
>> I completely agree -- it says that we believe ECO is a powerful
>> technology that should have the room to expand into new markets.
>>
>
> I think its great to see ECO expand into new markets.
>
And while we're on the subject of expanding to new markets, it would be
great if another team could be split off of CodeGear to form its own company
and go after other markets such as the server-side Linux market...
-d
Eric Grange
> to build sedans, compacts, pick-ups, SUVs, etc?
A correct version of your analogy would be GM having a need/desire to
sell Toyotas.
Eric
Rich Davis
Actually, a more correct version would be Delco selling parts for GM and
then deciding to also sell parts for Toyotas.
Rich
I.P. Nichols
>
> Actually, a more correct version would be Delco selling parts for GM and
> then deciding to also sell parts for Toyotas.
FWIW Delco is now known as Delphi. ;-)
Kyle A. Miller
> So for that reason, spinning it off makes it
> clear that it stands apart from the Delphi IDE as a separate product
> and therefore ensures that MS cannot perceive it as part of a
> comepting IDE, thus disqualifying it from being able to use the VS
> support for plug-ins (VSIP).
The more I think about this non-compete theory, the more it doesn't
make sense. What does Microsoft currently sell that competes with
Delphi? Nothing. They have no RAD native Windows development tool. They
certainly do not have a RAD tool that utilizes the VCL, which a Delphi
for VS personality would do.
You guys who believe CodeGear should liquidate, I mean sell off, I mean
market, their Delphi technologies to Visual Studio have me convinced.
Delphi for Visual Studio now! The market is lucrative. There is no
reason to withhold the spirit of Delphi from VS users.
Best of all, it would relieve CodeGear from the burden of maintaining
their own IDE. Imagine how much they could dedicate to Win32/64
development if they did not have to baby-sit their own IDE. Imagine the
profits!
Delphi for Visual Studio NOW!
</sarcasm>
Q Correll
| FWIW Delco is now known as Delphi. ;-)
And, as I seem to remember, was originally Delco Remy. <g>
--
Q
07/10/2007 09:24:00
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
I.P. Nichols
>
> | FWIW Delco is now known as Delphi. ;-)
>
> And, as I seem to remember, was originally Delco Remy. <g>
It has a very colorful history starting in 1909 when Deeds and Kettering
formed the Dayton Engineering Laboratories company (Delco) which merged with
Remy Electric in 1926 to form Delco-Remy. In 1997 the commercial portion of
Delco Electronics was transferred to GM's Delphi Automotive Systems
business. Delphi became a separate publicly-traded company in May 1999.
I.P. Nichols
> You guys who believe CodeGear should liquidate, I mean sell off, I mean
> market, their Delphi technologies to Visual Studio have me convinced.
> Delphi for Visual Studio now! The market is lucrative. There is no reason
> to withhold the spirit of Delphi from VS users.
>
> Best of all, it would relieve CodeGear from the burden of maintaining
> their own IDE.
Nick will correct me if my memory is wrong but I seem to remember Nick
having a somewhat similar suggestion on his old www.lemanix.com/nickblog a
year or two before he joined CodeGear.
Rich Davis
I'd love to say that's why I used Delco for the analogy, but I had
forgotten that connection.
Rich
Sarah
> Sarah wrote:
>
>> I am glad they found some capable hands to help in developing the
>> product.
>
> IOW: The same people who always worked on it.
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to say anything bad about the existing people.
It's all about the extra money that helps.
Kyle A. Miller
> I'd love to say that's why I used Delco for the analogy, but I had
> forgotten that connection.
Considering how bad GM and Delphi, the parts company, are doing (Ok, GM
is working on its turn around.), the comparison gives me the willies.
I.P. Nichols
The bad karma that emanates from that Delphi is enough to cause CodeGear to
commission a special exorcism music performance by the Austrian rock band
Karma Killer. ;-)
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Questoin: As it expands into new markets will Codegear get a share of
> the revenue?
I'm not free to discuss the details of the agreement, but rest assured
that we didn't give things away.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
http://blogs.codegear.com/nickhodges
Kyle A. Miller
> The bad karma that emanates from that Delphi is enough to cause
> CodeGear to commission a special exorcism music performance by the
> Austrian rock band Karma Killer. ;-)
lol. At least I can walk away from this disturbing thread with at least
one laugh. Would the CodeGear employees wearing garlic day to day help?
(That sounds like a story line from The Office.)
Q Correll
Thanks for the history!
--
Q
07/10/2007 14:17:16
Eddy Poullet
I still prefer Delphi for Eclipse !
Good step to other environments, isn't it ?
Eddy
Kyle A. Miller
>> Delphi for Visual Studio NOW!
>
> I still prefer Delphi for Eclipse !
> Good step to other environments, isn't it ?
I ask "Why not?!" Others would say Visual Studio shows a greater
potential for profits, and therefore, a superior option. It's all about
lucrative markets. Why didn't we discover this concept in 1995?! ;o)
Seriously, Eclipse is not a bad idea if there is a non-compete clause
with MS (I highly doubt it.). You could work on JBuilder & Delphi
applications in the same project group. The problem is I would like to
work on some .NET projects. Since CodeGear has effectively shuttled
their .NET efforts, I would prefer a Visual Studio plug-in so I could
use a single IDE.
Bruce McGee
> Since CodeGear has effectively
> shuttled their .NET efforts,
CodeGear hasn't "shuttled" their .Net support. You probably mean just
C# designer support, right?
> I would prefer a Visual Studio plug-in
> so I could use a single IDE.
Delphi as a Visual Studio plug-in is useless to me. I'd rather
CodeGear concentrate on other things. But if you're that interested,
maybe pitch in and lend these guys a hand:
http://www.codeplex.com/Delphi4VisualStudio
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Kyle A. Miller
> CodeGear hasn't "shuttled" their .Net support. You probably mean just
> C# designer support, right?
I said "effectively shuttled" their .NET support. I say this given the
new roapmap plus recent actions with ECO. (Isn't even called ECO
anymore? It does contain the word "enterprise" in it. We can't have
that. Not as Win32 purists. ;) )
> Delphi as a Visual Studio plug-in is useless to me. I'd rather
> CodeGear concentrate on other things. But if you're that interested,
> maybe pitch in and lend these guys a hand:
>
> http://www.codeplex.com/Delphi4VisualStudio
I'm being sarcastic. I believe in Delphi for Delphi. I don't believe
CodeGear should sell off reasons to use Delphi.
Kyle A. Miller
> And while we're on the subject of expanding to new markets, it would be great
> if another team could be split off of CodeGear to form its own company and go
> after other markets such as the server-side Linux market...
One would think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Set
Kylix free! Spin it off.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> I don't believe CodeGear should sell off reasons to use Delphi.
To be clear -- we haven't sold anything.
Kyle A. Miller
> Kyle A. Miller wrote:
>
>> I don't believe CodeGear should sell off reasons to use Delphi.
>
> To be clear -- we haven't sold anything.
I thought you sold CapableObjects a license to develop and sell ECO
technology. No? In any case, I did not mean "sell" as in a financial
transaction. It's meant in a figurative sense. "You sold me down the
river!"
Bruce McGee
> I said "effectively shuttled" their .NET support. I say this given
> the new roapmap plus recent actions with ECO.
Then what do you mean by "shuttled"?
> I'm being sarcastic. I believe in Delphi for Delphi. I don't believe
> CodeGear should sell off reasons to use Delphi.
Glad to hear it.
Kyle A. Miller
> Then what do you mean by "shuttled"?
As in .NET objectives have been almost completely re-prioritized or
abandoned. ECO is no longer reserved for Delphi. C# is history. Delphi
VCL.NET is all that remains. I can hope support for "development of
ASP.NET 2.0" means a designer will be present.
Brad White
> Kyle A. Miller wrote:
>
>> I said "effectively shuttled" their .NET support. I say this given
>> the new roapmap plus recent actions with ECO.
>
> Then what do you mean by "shuttled"?
>
I've been assuming that he means scuttled.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttled
HTH,
Brad.
Bruce McGee
> I've been assuming that he means scuttled.
> en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttled
That's what I thought, too.
John Moshakis
>
> As in .NET objectives have been almost completely re-prioritized or
> abandoned.
I think thats a bit of a stretch.
> ECO is no longer reserved for Delphi. C# is history.
> Delphi VCL.NET is all that remains. I can hope support for
> "development of ASP.NET 2.0" means a designer will be present.
When was Eco ever reserved for just Delphi ? I think your being overly
dramatic when you say your hoping that the asp.net designer will be
present.
Cheers,
John
Kyle A. Miller
> I think thats a bit of a stretch.
Your opinion. I don't see how the latest .NET related moves increase
the Delphi.NET user base.
> When was Eco ever reserved for just Delphi ? I think your being
> overly dramatic when you say your hoping that the asp.net designer
> will be present.
Did you expect the Winform designer to be tossed? I didn't. Did you
think the C# personality would be shelved? I didn't. That's two
dramatic moves, especially if you have built solutions based on these
technologies. My expectations were Delphi advancing in the .NET arena,
not retreating.
David Compton
> Did you expect the Winform designer to be tossed? I didn't. Did you
> think the C# personality would be shelved? I didn't. That's two
> dramatic moves, especially if you have built solutions based on these
> technologies. My expectations were Delphi advancing in the .NET arena,
> not retreating.
>
Couldn't have said it better myself..........
David
Bruce McGee
> Did you expect the Winform designer to be tossed? I didn't. Did you
> think the C# personality would be shelved? I didn't. That's two
> dramatic moves, especially if you have built solutions based on these
> technologies. My expectations were Delphi advancing in the .NET
> arena, not retreating.
I also didn't expect Microsoft to add Visual Studio only dependencies
to the WinForms 2.0 designers, which I suspect was a big part of
CodeGear's decision to no longer support them. Then there's the thing
where Microsoft decided to halt all development on WinForms, but that's
a whole other discussion.
I'm curious to see how well I will be able to debug C# 2.0 applications
in the Delphi IDE, but it isn't the most important reason that I use
Delphi.
As I said, given the choice, CodeGear's .Net future should be with
Delphi and the VCL, not C#/VB.Net with WinForms.
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> Did you expect the Winform designer to be tossed? I didn't. Did you
> think the C# personality would be shelved? I didn't. That's two
> dramatic moves, especially if you have built solutions based on these
> technologies. My expectations were Delphi advancing in the .NET
> arena, not retreating.
Those weren't easy decisions to make, believe me.
However, we try not to look at "advancing or retreating" in .NET. We
are trying to focus on solutions, not technologies. In other words,
what can't you do with Delphi that you need to do? We have solutions
for almost anything you'd care to do.
Brian Moelk
> In other words,
> what can't you do with Delphi that you need to do?
You're opening up pandora's box here....
> We have solutions
> for almost anything you'd care to do.
Sorry Nick, you actually don't.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
bmo...@NObrainSPAMendeavorFOR.MEcom
Bruce McGee
> Sorry Nick, you actually don't.
Specifics, please.
Robin
> Brian Moelk wrote:
>
>> Sorry Nick, you actually don't.
>
> Specifics, please.
>
Compact Framework comes to mind.
To be fair though, we couldn't really do that out-of-the-box with bds
winforms either.
--
Robin.
Australian Bridal Accessories := http://www.bridalbuzz.com.au
Turbo for Noobs (a work in progress) := http://turbofornoobs.blogspot.com/
Nick Hodges (CodeGear)
> You're opening up pandora's box here....
Go ahead.
> Sorry Nick, you actually don't.
Really? What kind of app don't we have a solution for?
We build clients.
We build servers.
We build web apps
We build websites
We build multi-tier app servers
We build apps to access databases
We build standalone apps.
Bruce McGee
> Compact Framework comes to mind.
Fair point.
I wonder how many people are doing CF development? I remember planning
to, but haven't had a business reason yet.
Brian Moelk
> Really? What kind of app don't we have a solution for?
>
> We build clients.
For Linux and Mac single sourced?
> We build servers.
Best with the help of third parties. :) Also, IMO, lack of cross
platform support is killing Delphi for this purpose.
> We build web apps
> We build websites
Official Apache support? Again, cross platform support and being
IIS-centric is also not favorable. ASP.NET might be your strategy
there, but once you're in that world, IMO, you might as well go VS.NET.
IW is great, but hard to deploy if you don't host the machine, therefore
it's really best for "web apps", which is what it's best suited for
anyway. And FWIW, I consider IW a third party product. :)
> We build multi-tier app servers
Again, best with the help of third party support. My choice here is
RemObjects. Sorry, but Delphi's SOAP support and MIDAS/DataSnap/DataHub
stuff is a far cry from what is being offered in the third party market
place IMO.
> We build apps to access databases
Lack of ECO for Win32 comes to mind here. As the rest of the industry
has moved to Hibernate, ActiveRecord, etc. where is Delphi's Win32
solution? Where is a modern/better data binding solution?
Lack of a solution here also contributes to a very antiquated way of
developing web applications. While the rest of the development
landscape is dealing with ORM and inversion of control frameworks,
Delphi's got what?
> We build standalone apps.
This is what Delphi does best for Windows. This why Delphi is still
relevant at all.
And finally, mobile devices: no support for Windows Mobile or Symbian.
Robin
> I wonder how many people are doing CF development? I remember planning
> to, but haven't had a business reason yet.
In all honesty, I wanted it but am now not so sure. After doing it in
VS2005 for a while, I find it is a bit of a moving target.
So my interest at least has waned.
Brian Moelk
> And finally,
actually finally is 64-bit support.