Re: Turbo: A great idea, not properly thought through... ?
- From: "Michael" <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 24 Aug 2006 11:34:56 -0700
Hi!
There are good ideas your posting.
The problem you describe, being in the position to combine
different languages in one BDS and making use of them - is
currently possible under Delphi 2006. Let us assume and say this
works.
The Basic problem is that Delphi 2006 comes with a lot of
accompaning stuff like ECO or Together ..... that really do not
address the needs of the let me say "typical" Delphi developer,
who is still on D7 or D 2006/Win32, independet from how good and
usefull these products are to a sophisticated users of a D2006.
Getting rid of them makes sense.
My experience is that people prefer one language + one
technology. Not all of us are at the age of 20 and technology
freaks or have to cross mixed technology boundaries.
Don't get me wrong, I like the vision of having a compatible VCL
and VCL.net.
What could be ok, would be a D 2006 version with a VCL that
comes with the Enterprise or Architect Version, ECO is also
welcome, but without the tools... (Togehter,....)in the Prof.
Version. There exist a lot more more Delphi like Third
parties.... So the decision to get rid of the ALM stuff is
wise (ALM still makes sense but part of the IDE product few
people really need it...)
..net has changed the situation lot more than COM or COM+. But I
think here is the chance for the Turbos, assuming that they are
not a Marketing trick to get rid of the Delphi 8 and C#
Builder's hoping to have a reason for existence and the legenday
D2005:-).
If Borland/DEVCO takes the chance and builds specific IDE's that
cover special needs eg. Win32 combined with the usage of .net
(just use not develop in one IDE) they can deliver the languages
"technolgies" in a way people who use this specific IDE
currently will like and honor. I'm very sure a lot more than
having a new Together version installed with an upgrade.
Installation on one computer. Let me say, the existence of
Virtual Computers (VMWare, VirtualPC,...and all the others) can
simply solve this problem, they can solve..ok:-).
In this case the syncronisation is at the code level and not on
the conceptual level integrated into the IDE - a slight
disadvantage or a matter of tase. Somebody who wants to have
this should go versus Delphi 2007 or whatever.
In the end there is a need for both product lines in my opinion
it is very hard for a one in all solution like D 2006 to satisfy
everybody's needs in Time. Therefore the concept of the Turbos,
divided
targetes can help to keep up with the current needs, come closer to newer .net versions. A D200x can wait a lot longer. There is
no need to support a WSE CTP, but a Turbo C# Builder could help
to come out faster.
I think it is important to get Delphi BDS away from the VS
discussion because it is something different.
But I respect your will to install 2 Turbos into one IDE. This would make sense, there really exist comination that make sense.
- 3 or more is Delphi 200x.
Regards
Mike
Jolyon Smith <jsmith@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Seems the Turbo line misses the point in two key areas:
- Regaining the support of pre-BDS Delphi users
- Not adequately addressing the needs of the stated target audience by
actively preventing the use of the Turbo range to fully "Explore" the
potential of the BDS suite
On a superficial bean counting level I can appreciate the thinking
behind not offering an upgrade path to Turbo from pre-BDS Delphi, but I
believe that thinking was wrong. I think there are a lot of people who
would like to be able to upgrade to Turbo from D7 (and earlier) who will
instead simply sit tight and wait and see what happens with Turbo/BDS 07
On a technical level I can understand how the architecture of BDS
prevents multiple Turbos from being installable on a single machine - it
comes with the territory when you hack a multiple personality product to
support only a single personality and then release the multi-personality
framework in multiple, single personality editions.
However, I don't see this as washing with the target audience, as
stated.
It seems to me that Turbo was announced prematurely.
If new, potential BDS users were the target time should have been taken
to properly architect a Turbo IDE into which multiple personalities
could be installed as required.
i.e. Download Turbo Explorer IDE + Delphi language then optionally
download and install C# language support, all within the single Explorer
IDE.
If this isn't how the Explorers are intended to be used, and a "Studio"
environment restricted to fully paid up BDS users, then the time should
have been taken to create truly stand-alone Explorer IDE's for each
language.
The rush to announce and release the Turbo range might be explained if
the intention were to attract disillusioned pre-BDS developers who don't
need and don't want the multi-lingual capabilities of BDS back into the
Delphi fold.
This would make sense since such users already KNOW that they only want
a single language IDE and therefore aren't going to be bothered by the
limitation of only being able to install a single language IDE. They
also relady know what they need to do to get multiple languages.
But as is becoming increasingly clear, this is clearly not the aim of
the Turbo's.
The aim and intent is to get new users, something for which the product
is particularly poorly architected to achieve.
Yet the ideal target audience is specifically and deliberately denied a
reasonable upgrade path.
Which begs the question: Wherefore art thou "Turbo"?
--
Jolyon Smith
.
- References:
- Turbo: A great idea, not properly thought through... ?
- From: Jolyon Smith
- Turbo: A great idea, not properly thought through... ?
- Prev by Date: Re: Upgrade path to Turbo Delphi
- Next by Date: Re: Delphi for Amazon S3
- Previous by thread: Re: Turbo: A great idea, not properly thought through... ?
- Next by thread: How to set the default project folder in BDS 2006
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
