Brian, I hope this responds to your points (Good chatting BTW, hope all is
- Because the compiler is free doesn't mean the IDE must be too.  We could
say the MV database model and Pick/BASIC compiler are free, and we're just
licensing user access to it through the various MV DBMS implementations.
But we have to pay for "something".  I see no problem with someone providing
a for-fee IDE which makes my development easier, and I think Borland was
wise to create a tiered pricing structure for increased functionality,
starting with free software for limited use.
- About "no commercial use" in the free version: If I'm making money by
using someone else's software I see nothing wrong with compensating them for
the opportunities they've provided me.  That goes for VS.NET, C#Builder, or
an MV DBMS.  What we all object to is "unreasonably" and prohibitively high
costs to developers, and up-front costs that could be unrecoverable if for
some reason we aren't selling product.
- About the quality of C#Builder.  I've had my beefs with it too but it IS a
good product and a viable alternative to VS.NET when people say "I don't
want to have to pay Microsoft to code in .NET".  See the following link for
a side by side comparison:
What that article points out is that C#Builder is about on-par with VS.NET
for average development.  However it stands out considerably for
Enterprise-scale development of larger applications (which was probably not
considered by your local press who hammered the product).  Maybe this isn't
where guys like us fit in, but Borland did address needs of a large audience
that were not being satisfied with Microsoft offerings, and that seems to be
consistent with the overall Borland strategy.

While I spent several months intensively working with C#Builder last year,
for my needs VS.NET is my preferred tool, though I do miss some very cool
features of C#Builder.

How does this apply to MV developers?  In my mind tools are irrelevant.
Pick one and go forward.  I don't care if you're using VS.NET, C#Builder, or
Notepad for your .NET development, but I think it's important to get started
with .NET development with any tool at any level, to enhance your apps and
keep you competitive with other "mainstream" offerings.

My best,

Brian Leach wrote:
>But C#Builder is a borrowed technology and the cost seems way 
>high for what is essentially a wrapper around a compiler that 
>is otherwise available for free. The cost seems to be set to 
>reflect that of Visual Studio .Net, which offers far more in 
>terms of functionality than the Borland IDE: and it got 
>hammered by the computer press over here for exactly that reason. 
>I'm worried that Borland are getting greedy - snapping up 
>technology companies instead of concentrating on their core 
>skills of providing the best languages (they've gone down that 
>road before and been badly burned) - there is a sense that 
>they are panicking in response to losing their best resource 
>to Microsoft - and pushing out product that is overpriced for 
>the market or not ready. That's not the Borland we know and 
>love, and as a long time Borland supporter, I want Borland to 
>succeed - they have a very loyal customer base and I can't see 
>these tactics doing Borland any favours. 
>BTW you cannot legally use C#Builder personal for any 
>commercial development.
>Brian 'who wouldn't be without his MSDN universal subscription 
>either' Leach

u2-users mailing list

Reply via email to