Re: Weird

"Chris Burrows" <cfbsoftware@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:442b1927@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
" Tom Corey" <omtay.oreycay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:xn0ekav7mqy4wdj003@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chris Burrows wrote:

it would be a great help if Borland published a list of
components that are reliable, or alternatively a blacklist
of ones to avoid.

Impractical. It is not Borland's responsibility to perform quality
testing on the entire market of third party tools - that is the job of
the third party developers.

Probably way too late now but Borland could have had a 'Verified by
Borland' or some such scheme going. Reputable 3rd-party component vendors
would have been willing to pay for the privelege for having such valuable
endorsement.


Surely you jest.

Are you thinking that the vendor would never upgrade their components?
Or that Borland would redo the intensive testing for every release of
every little vendor's components?

The mind boggles at how long it would take to thoroughly test a
single component, knowing that once they put their stamp on it,
people would hold them accountable.

They have enough trouble now trying to get submitted papers published
on BDN. Where would they get the time to work on this?
I can think of dozens of issues that are higher priority for them to work
on.

And it would be foolish for Borland to
black list any components because it would open them up to legal action.


I agree. A white-list is far preferable.

If you want to start such a white-list or black-list effort, I'm sure
there would be interest among your fellow developers.

I don't see this as a responsibility for the end-user.
Only the people that care about an issue are motivated enough to
do anything about it.

And I'm just as
sure that ther would be a huge range of opinions about the quality of
each and every component you reported on.

Of course, but over a period of time it would be reasonable easy to
distinguish the shiners from the stinkers. I regularly look at appropriate
support forums as part of software purchasing decision making process
these days. They can be very helpful.

Everyone adds code continually to their components. Either adding new
functionality or fixing bugs. Who would make sure the list was
up to date.
The worst, and most likely thing, would be getting a list started, and then
finding it impractical, so it no longer gets updated. But it probably stays
online.
So some have false confidence in components that have had bugs added.
And other components are permanently labeled as bad for bugs that were fixed
long ago.

--
Thanks, but try again,
Brad.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Weird
    ... It is not Borland's responsibility to perform quality ... Probably way too late now but Borland could have had a 'Verified by Borland' ... I don't see this as a responsibility for the end-user. ... got enough people doing their work for free - peer support in these ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: QualityCentral
    ... take out Borlands expensive support cases to report bugs that never get ... I'm fairly certain the only bugs that get addressed in Borland ... > talk a lot about quality, but doesn't like to do anything about it. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: QualityCentral
    ... I'm fairly certain the only bugs that get addressed in Borland ... > Such as the StringGrid and DBGrid components? ... >> talk a lot about quality, but doesn't like to do anything about it. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: What Delphi 8 really is...
    ... Why it is not done by Borland? ... > Improve the quality of Delphi! ... Get your bugs into QC: ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: DELPHI 2005
    ... it has a _FEW_ bugs. ... I think Borland either needs more field testers (or perhaps a public ... I would imagine that almost _EVERYONE_ who uses Delphi ... that someone at Borland will start to focus on quality. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
Loading