At 02:37 PM 5/6/99, you wrote:
> >This is a view commonly held by many MS bashers who have
> >never had to do any serious development, and deliver real product.
>Ouch! Why don't you just call me a worthless hack who never wrote a decent
>line of code in his life? Every real product I've written for Windows (3.0,
>3.1, 3.11, 95 and 98 plus a few DOS apps) have been mostly written using non
>MS products.
Dave, I apologize for calling you 'worthless hack who never wrote a decent
line of code in his life'. I did use the word 'many' intending to exclude
you. I'm just sick of all this anti MS fervor, when few viable alternatives
are available. As you point out there a many reasons no one can keep up.
We've tried using both Borland and Symantec to do MFC and it actually
worked for a while. Till the next release of MFC came out and it wouldn't
compile anymore. This left us in limbo indefinitely, not having access to
the latest bells and whistles. As an experienced Windows developer you must
know that bells and whistles is the name of the game in the Windows world.
C++ Builder is very cool for RAD, but has the same problems. We get left in
the dust when some new gizmo comes out.
Anyway this is way off topic for a Palm Dev forum. What prompted the
original post was the suggestion that spending time on compiler independence
would be a good idea for the CDK. Wouldn't it be much easier to recompile
the darn thing under VC++ 6.0 and be done with this issue? The current
Palm development platform is not in great shape. Wouldn't limited resources
be better applied there? How about a new Windows based IDE for the
Metrowerks tools, they tell me the compiler generates pretty decent code!
They could make it a C++ builder app. I don't care as long as its fast and
reliable under Windows.
