Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)
From: Brian Moelk (bmoelk_at_NObrainSPAMendeavorFOR.MEcom)
Date: 03/10/04
- Next message: Don Strenczewilk: "Re: XP SP2 will break applications"
- Previous message: Bruce McGee: "Re: VCL -> XAML or VCL -> WinForms -> XAML"
- In reply to: Dennis Landi: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Next in thread: Dennis Landi: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Reply: Dennis Landi: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:04:58 -0500
> Why? Much easier to get *new* Delphi.NET users from outside the existing
> customer base? Why would that be easier?... Nope I disagree.
This is just a fact of any business, not just Borland or Delphi.
> In this particular case, I don't think that is true. And I mean the
> particular case of herding an entrenched customer base from a rich,
robust,
> natively compiled code base to an entirely new framework with no
particular
> advantage on Win32. In the face of clear alternatives.
Delphi 8 is selling and I suspect it's mostly selling to people that have
purchased Delphi before.
> I think it would
> have been far easier to simply upgrade the customer base to 64-bit since
its
> natively compiled; and the upgrade path was crystal clear. Then the .NET
> stuff would logically come next.
I know you're an advocate of a 64-bit compiler <g> and so am I. However,
there are a lot more companies using dotNet now than running 64-bit
machines. The dotNet framework has been available longer than 64-bit
windows.
> As it stands, there is no compelling
> reason to leave the Win32 code base at all. As it stands, Delphi.NET is
all
> dressed up with no place to go. Longhorn is years away.... This is one
of
> the worst cases of timing I have ever seen. Yeah, .NET is the next
windows
> API..... ON LONGHORN.... In the mean time we could be honing our tools on
> 64-bit (in an alternate universe)
I actually think Borland is late to the dotNET party. But I agree on some
level, about compelling reasons to use dotNET. It's important for Borland
to get into the dotNet market and the reasons are not all technical.
> Clearer? ;-)
Absolutely, I never would have guessed that's what you meant, so I'm glad I
asked for clarification.
> If there are no newbs, there is no justification to have "hello dataset"
> demoes period, right?
Agreed.
> Instead, if the goal really is to sell the *veterans*
> on something new, then you need to gear the demo accordingly.
I agree about showing something new in the demos.
> Why do I need
> to explain this, again? I won't pursue this part of the thread further.
Because it was unclear about what level of demo Borland should demonstrate.
I'm not picking a fight here Dennis, but you seem to be very defensive for
some reason. IMO, it would be hard for Borland to show some really advanced
demos and still keep the audiences attention and understanding.
Also, the meat of the dotNET market are the 5 million VB programmers who
have been hung out to dry by dotNET. I don't think any VB guys were there
at that specific meeting, but how would Borland know that to be the case? I
suppose they could ask first and maybe they should ask.
> I think growth in revenues is the least of Borland's worries. Keeping the
> veteran customer-base and maintaining revenue intact should be their
worry.
They are a public company; growth in revenue is the primary thing even
moreso than releasing "when it's ready". <g>
> Granted Delphi.NET is a critical piece to that puzzle. That must happen,
> but not as a *replacement* for the natively compiled product and not as a
> replacement for the x-platform capability.
dotNet is natively compiled and is x-platform. <g>
> .NET needs to be an *additional*
> feature; not a replacement. And that means 64-bit...., the logical
> progession of the existing product. This is what the VC++ culture got,
and
> this is what we need to get as well.
Who's need? Your need perhaps, most likely not the market's at this time.
I agree that a 64-bit compiler would be a great thing for Delphi, but I
disagree that it's more important than a dotNET one. It's a moot point
anyway, Borland's already developed the dotNET compiler and IDE.
> Nothing necessarily equates to anything necessarily. The problem with
> couching all statements in caveats is that you can be endanger of
eventually
> saying nothing.
lol...what's wrong with saying nothing?
My point in saying "ten-year veterans does not necessarily equate to Experts
and Gurus" is that your conclusion doesn't follow your assertion.
> I mean that MS has allowed each of its very different "developer cultures"
> to carry on much as they have.
Ask the VB guys if they think their "developer culture" has been preserved.
> For all the BS about the VBers not having and upgrade path, they have
> VB.NET. Yeah, they have to learn how to use an actual honest-to-god
> programming language and there will be some pain, but they *do* have an
> upgrade path , to basically carry on much as they did but with a richer
tool
> set. (Yeah, their VB6 code gets broken, but it sucked anyway.)
lol....and that's a migration path? learn a different language that looks
like the one you've been using and re-write your code because it sucked
anyway? rotflmao
IMO Delphi developers have a *much* easier and cleaner upgrade path.
> Delphi.NET; lets you compete with C# (which is good) but it doesn't allow
> the natively compiled delphi developer to continue on as usual but just
with
> a richer tool set. Its a different tool set (and a good one to be sure).
> But if I can't create lean, mean natively compiled servers *when* I wish,
> then I have lost something.
Is your Delphi 7 broken?
> Sometimes I just want a scalpel to do my work.
> I don't need an entire operating theatre, complete with nursing staff,
> cardio team, monitoring equipment, on-call-amublance, and a 24-hour
> custodian; when all I need and want is to wield a scalpel for a specific,
> lean, mean operation. (and remember I am "looking forward" with these
> statements - to LongHorn)
Then code it in Delphi 7.
> This is a serious hole in the (near) future product offering, IMO
On Longhorn or are you going on about 64-bit again? I certainly think there
are serious holes in their current offerings <g>.
> To impose this larger framework on me with no alternative is a rather
> patriarchical, father knows best, dynamic; and I don't like it.
Poor Dennis. Don't buy it, don't use it. Who's *imposing* anything on you?
Playing victim is so ridiculous.
> I have no
> beef with plunging into .NET with gusto; but frankly that doesn't
> eclipse/preclude/supercede the natively compiled projects that I have
> planned for my own good reasons.
Then perhaps dotNET and/or Delphi isn't the right tool for the job you have
planned. Borland can't please everyone.
-- Brian Moelk bmoelkNO@SPAMbrainendeavorFOR.MEcom http://www.brainendeavor.com
- Next message: Don Strenczewilk: "Re: XP SP2 will break applications"
- Previous message: Bruce McGee: "Re: VCL -> XAML or VCL -> WinForms -> XAML"
- In reply to: Dennis Landi: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Next in thread: Dennis Landi: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Reply: Dennis Landi: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
