Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)
From: Dennis Landi ([none][at][none][dot][com])
Date: 03/10/04
- Next message: R.F. Pels: "Re: XP SP2 will break applications"
- Previous message: Johan Petersson: "Re: Software Assurance?"
- In reply to: Brian Moelk: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Next in thread: Brian Moelk: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Reply: Brian Moelk: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:55:02 -0500
"Brian Moelk" <bmoelk@NObrainSPAMendeavorFOR.MEcom> wrote in message
news:404f124d$1@newsgroups.borland.com...
> > 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.
>
We don't have to speak in hypotheticals here. We can speak specifically
about Delphi's case.
> > 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.
>
Yeah. This is where the VISION thing would come in handy, not the
follow-the-leader thing.
> > 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.
>
It is demonstrably clear to me that I don't need .NET on the Win32 API. I
really don't see why any of my colleagues would. I still haven't been given
a single argument how or why .NET makes me a better developer on Win32.
And, gee whiz, I don't need my objects freed for me, thanks.
So that being the case, Borland is not late to the party. The party will be
on LongHorn.
> > 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.
Sorry, not defensive, just impatient. In your defense <g> when typing fast
and posting without obligatory proof-reading I have a tendency to use all
pronouns in a paragraph with no proper names and I can see how that would
make it tough to follow what I am talking about.
> IMO, it would be hard for Borland to show some really advanced
> demos and still keep the audiences attention and understanding.
>
Well that why we call this "Mission Impossible" not "Mission Hard".
> 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>
>
> > .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.
>
Developers who have been using Delphi at the level of a C++ tool instead of
a VB tool will certainly experience the same disconnect I foresee. Note the
word "foresee". The train wreck is on the *next* platform, not this one.
> > 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?
>
Here is the kind of discourse I will side-step:
Socrates: A tree that has lived ten seasons in the sun, does not need to be
shown what an acorn is.
Eumenides: Surely not *all* trees, *everywhere*, could not benefit from
being shown acorn?
(I took the liberty of casting myself as Socrates, sorry!)
This is the kind pedanticism that I find unhelpful, as it goes nowhere. The
original broader point stands outside of the possibility of individual
examples to the contrary. Not trying to dump on you, Brian. Just telling
what kinds of discourse I wil side-step.
> My point in saying "ten-year veterans does not necessarily equate to
Experts
> and Gurus" is that your conclusion doesn't follow your assertion.
>
See above.
> > 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.
>
They are *so* lucky MS even gave them this. Its a testimony to the
ferocious loyalty of the VB community that they got VB.NET. (It scared MS)
But it was excellent that MS fixed the language for them, so that the Homo
Sapiens VB-Apeans could finally evolve to Homo Sapiens Sapiens. End result,
MS will have effectively re-trained a massive population to write real
code... A master stroke.
But frankly they should have been told to just learn C# and be done with it.
I suspect that's eventually what they'll do....
> > 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?
Yep.
>rotflmao
>
Funny, I know.
> IMO Delphi developers have a *much* easier and cleaner upgrade path.
>
Agreed, and?
> > 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?
>
Can I compile 64-bit code on Delphi7?
> > 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?
Sorry I wasn't clear again. Both. And this is a crucial point and
involves that VISION thing again. But does it really require all that much
vision? I mean do you have to be clairvoyant to see that the LongHorn era
will be 64-bit?
> > 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?
Not the response from marketing I was hoping for. Are you speaking for
Borland marketing or management?
>
> > 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.
>
Not the marketing response I was hoping for. Are you speaking for Borland
marketing or management?
Brian. I certainly value your activity and views in this forum. Keep it
up.
I start a new contract today. So my participation will most likely be
diminished.
If I have any late breaking 64-bit news on how the entire world has embraced
64-bit, I'll let you know.
Bye.
-d
- Next message: R.F. Pels: "Re: XP SP2 will break applications"
- Previous message: Johan Petersson: "Re: Software Assurance?"
- In reply to: Brian Moelk: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Next in thread: Brian Moelk: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Reply: Brian Moelk: "Re: Core Constituency (and other ramblings)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
