A couple of things came to my notice this morning that I thought
should entice some good feedback.
The first of these, a book review in SD Times by Allen Holub.
Rarely do I find myself in such complete agreement with ANYONE, let alone a
staff writer for any mag or newsletter! <g> But this guy summed up in a
short article what would have taken me a week's worth of e-mails to get
across! I don't want to get into the details here and now, unless of course
someone feels like openly disagreeing, but because of what he said, I'm
planning on spending the next nickel I find on the book, "Software for Use:
A Practical guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centered Design".
I must admit to taking exception with almost all books on software
design I've ever looked through...not because of any particular factoids or
rules of thumb they might lay down, although they are sometimes in
themselves enough to warrant disagreement, but mainly because as the author
of this review says, ( and this is NOT a direct quote! ), they are most
often impressed with their own opinions as being the ONLY ones of value!
And also because I sometimes find it difficult to understand how often the
individual author(s) seem to forget that event-driven programming
practically cries out for design based upon use models of some sort or
other! I even remember getting into a rather heated debate a while back on
a newsgroup with someone who absolutely refused to acknowledge there could
be any kind of design methodology of useful value when it came to
programming...obviously the same guy who invested his life's savings in
synthetic dirt!
In any case it sounds like a worthy read on the face of it and I'd
love to hear from anyone who has! Design, of ANY type, has always been a
favorite subject of mine, and program vs. application design a very
perplexing condition that not all design problems share!
Next, there was a comment in one of the newsgroups I frequent that
referred to a BLOB by some well-known Delphinians on the future Borland has
mapped out for Delphi over the next couple of years. Two things in that map
got my attention more than the others, and they were first that Borland
seems even more intent of going after the corporate level programmer than
ever before, making it sound at least as if "Together" -ness is to become a
part of EVERY edition of Delphi from now on. Personally, and I know I
wasn't alone in this, I couldn't wait to get rid of the dam module in the
first place when it appeared turned on by default in Delphi 2005! Based
upon Borland's track-record on improving things that never worked right in
the first place, AND the overall beta-state the module helped keep Delphi
2005 into until 2006 was well under way, I just don't see this as a good
thing! A good thing being defined as a product additive I don't need or use
but also doesn't get in the way! Besides, the balance that Borland gave to
programmers by way of it's all-level of programmer appeal has already
disappeared in the marketplace for the most part. This kind of thing just
pushes it firmly over the edge!
The other item was the talk of a VCL for .Net. On the surface this
sounds like a good idea, but then I started really thinking about it, and I
had to ask myself that if Borland has finally decided to jump all the way
onto the Net bandwagon...and adhere to Microsoft's Net standard...then any
investment in the current VCL for Delphi Net is wasted! Certainly they're
not going to attempt supporting two separate models? Are they going to have
a VCL for Net for Delphi Net? Or would it be called a Delphi VCL for the
Net VCL? Either way that would be three not counting the Win32 VCL! And by
the way, they never really did a good job of pushing that to begin with!
I don't know...maybe I'm a bit too easily confused...but this is all
starting to sound a little over-complicated for what should be a simple
transition Microsoft has forced down our throats! And don't get me wrong,
I'm not angered by Microsoft, after all it's their OS and as such have the
right to change whatever they want, irregardless of how it may effect the
many businesses that depend upon them...including us and the plain old
everyday user! If we choose to accept things as provided we deserve exactly
what we get! But does anyone else feel as if the industry, sans Microsoft,
is purposefully exploiting this situation, and carving up it's own
self-contrived food-chain in the process, instead of trying to do what they
were originally founded to do...and what they do or at least did best?
Where is the innovation that gave birth to all these companies?
They aren't dealing with Play-Doh here, nor are they forced by "other"
constraints to work with low-grade materials and garbage as some have had to
and nearly succeeded with in the past. This is intellectual property in
nature and in fact, and as such it deserves a lot more than what appears to
be afterthought and clinically necessary maintenance! Have all the
directives of innovation and imagination been taken over by that corporate
mentality of fornicating your customer base and then selling the rights so
everyone can watch as you do the same to yourself?
( Conspirators take note...! )
I'm not talking about the computer industry in general, although
their fault is quite obvious as well, but the support infrastructure...tool
makers, 3rd party companies, etc. When I look at small groups like
RemObjects, who despite the more than obvious difficulties have looked
toward new ways of dealing with these changes and in some cases by starting
at the very bottom instead of seeming to pile even more junk on top of an
already overloaded base design that the very concept of RAD implies, ( Note:
The word "junk" was NOT intended as a slur in any way, shape, or form! ), I
can't help but be reminded of the fact that despite the hundreds of name
changes and additives that have been conjured up over the years, Proctor and
Gamble still make what can be called SOAP! Can we say the same about
Delphi?
I cannot figure out what Borland is up to. What was once a probable
flagship product and a cash cow is slowly being turned into a marketing
fiasco and a has been referred to with every negative connotation thinkable
over the last few years...and even by it's own supporters! I love Delphi,
and despite all the problems and frustrations and still more problems, I've
stuck by it...even after losing two possible contracts because of customer
mistrust, due in large to the press, not fact...but dam it's beginning to
look more and more as if the presiding judgments at Borland are being made
by former S & L wannabes instead of by what used to be a talented group of
programmers and system engineers! Still however, I would love to be proven
wrong or at least a couple of years premature in my appraisal of the
situation...and that's why the long post!
from: Robert Meek at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
dba "Tangentals Design" home of "PoBoy"
freeware Windows apps and utilities
located at: www.TangentalsDesign.com
Proud to be a moderotor for the
"Delphi Programming Lists" at: elists.org
__________________________________________________
Delphi-Talk mailing list -> [email protected]
http://www.elists.org/mailman/listinfo/delphi-talk
