On 1/2/07 19:34, "Giovanni" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have been following the thread and having come from VS and VB, I dont > get the point of Making RB from RB. > > 1- Wouldnt C++ give you everything you need to create a massive > developing tool?
Obviously it would, but what better Kudos could a development tool have but the fact that it was written in itself. After all - Visual Studio is written in VS, and gcc is written in ... Gcc :) > 2- Shouldnt RB test their stuff before releasing it? If they tested or > debug the application and features they are releasing, shouldnt all this > bugs be fixed? Testing stuff before a release applies whether or not RB is written in RB or C++ > 3- Are we paying beta testers? > > It seems to me that the issues should not be DEVELOP USING RB, it should > be, why was this feature untested and who is responsible for those > features and their releases. > > I mean, after sitting here reading the threads, I have noticed that some > of you are top notch programmers, why isnt RS paying attention or are they? > > I fail to see why they have to develop in RB, if RB is bugged as it it, > it also means that the products being produced by RB are also bugged? > There are very good reasons 1) it allows RS to experience their own tool DIRECTLY and therefore improve it better, 2) by using it to develop a "hard core" app themselves they are in a good position to recognise where improvements need to be made to RB for performance, memory management etc.. 3) RB is a hell of a lot more productive to write code in thN to C++. This results in the LONG TERM in more reliable RB releases and faster bug fixes. I know there are at this time a lot of outstanding bug and performance issues, but I do think that we will all see the benefits, given time. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
