Re: Captain Jake's Top Ten List of what I'd like to see inthenextversionofDelphi

In article <44a44689$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
bmoelk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx says...

John Jacobson wrote:
I would prefer it to being stuck in a very old version of Delphi simply because
it would cost a substantial amount of money to upgrade the components used.

I've never thought the upgrades were substantial. I always weigh them
against how much time would it take to develop/maintain/test this
ourselves...

Not directly relevant I guess, but the answer to this is _usually_ "a
lot less than you might think". The trick is to focus on the time
required to develop/test/maintain those bits that you need, rather than
trying to replicate the components completely, including the bits you
don't need and will probably never use or at least can live without.


If they offered free upgrades it wouldn't be an issue. But they don't.

Many of them license their source code for just a bit more. Others
offer subscriptions.

And if the version you require is a deprecated version for which no
source will be provided, no way no how? Or if the vendor has since gone
out of business?

Just looking at it from a slightly less optimistic p.o.v.


Many of
them charge a lot for upgrades,

They do? Most offer discounted upgrades.

Can't speak for the other guy in his particular case, of course, but the
fact that "most" offer cheap upgrades isn't actually much help if the
_one_ that I need doesn't.

<shrug>



I do not believe backward compatibility of dcu's will help in any
substantial way to make the "buy" argument more appealing. The solution
is really simple: when buying a component, buy the source code edition.

Ditto to that.

However, I can understand the frustration where source code is/was not
available for a component that absolutely had to be used to save time
and expense, not-with-standing the risk of using a non-source component
(see your own point #1 in this post).

Making DCU's compatible in this way wouldn't prevent you from doing
things "properly" (using components+source where possible) but would at
least not leave you high and dry if you choose or are forced not to do
things properly.

<shrug>

fwiw - I still think it's a less than great idea, but as I said, can
understand the frustration.

:)

--
Jolyon Smith
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Registration sucks again
    ... It has to be said that this is the whole point of Escrow services. ... You give a third party the product to be held in the event of certain situations, like the business going bust. ... I'd love to see it made common practice that at some point after a product is no longer supported, that the source code for the 'old' product be made open source. ... The license could prevent direct competition with the product, but there are far to many cases of 'forcing' upgrades, or 'bad' upgrades, or changes in the product that make it untenable to use. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: ReportBuilder 9.03 Works with D2006
    ... The last two RB upgrades ... The original reason for DM not providing the source to the RAP ... the case with all or most of their competitor providing equivilent ... "Unfortunately we cannot make the source code to RAP available. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.thirdpartytools.general)
  • Re: Registration sucks again
    ... David Erbas-White wrote: ... I'd love to see it made common practice that at some point after a ... that the source code for the 'old' ... 'forcing' upgrades, or 'bad' upgrades, or changes in the product that ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Viewing HTML Source Code
    ... viewing web pages source code I could see the source code by selecting ... "View HTML Source from the View menu. ... happened before any upgrades- I was hoping the upgrades would fix the ...
    (microsoft.public.mac.office.word)