I will finish off and say that I read reasonable points on both sides of the argument.. and.. really For all its Faults Delphi 2007 has been an excellent development tool in the main.. I have no idea if the Visual Studio is better, or easier or anything.. so I cant really benchmark.. But if I was not satisfied enough.. i doubt I would have stuck with it. I love Delphi as a language, even if it has not kept up with some of the cooler features yet.
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Kyley Harris <ky...@harrissoftware.com>wrote: > you know that is is a topic that will just never end in open debate ;) > > "I'm sorry, but I would not commit to writing an application and then > fixing any things its users considered bugs gratis for eternity. I would > consider it reasonable for 3 months as long as it was agreed to in the > original payment schedule, but I would *certainly* not expect it after 18 > months. In the case of a development tool, with the importance of supporting > technology, I would expect new releases every 18 months and would be > concerned if I did not see new releases coming out from the vendor." > > It really just depends on what you are developing.. with most of the major > businesses in the world still heavily relying on 10+ year old technology > this just doesn't stack up. Advancement for the pure sake of it ony helps > the OS providers and programming vendors like E... releasing new cool stuff > every 18 months when the old stuff is not sufficient does not help the > paying customer.. We have customers still relying on DOS software they have > been using for 20 years.. still works, still BUG FREE and yes we stand > behind our product. these releases of new technology are not improving their > business at all.. what improves their business is the fact that we provided > a software package that did the job reliably and still does. Our ability to > provide a reliable product is based on our compilers etc also being bug free > and reliable.. > > > a 3 Month Policy, or whatever agreed.. thats really up to each customer and > provider and also probably depends on the nature of a product. Let me ask > this.. do you think to programmers writing the software for 747's and > rockets provide a 3 month warranty on peoples lives? no.. I'm sure they > aspire to more than that because they know that their laziness or accident > will cause lives.. Just like an Engineer, or Architect knows that mistakes > will cost lives.. IMHO there are NO PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS.. its > not a profession yet.. its just a thing we all do for money. Every > professional trade, be it Doctor, engineer, etc all share a simple thing > called responsibility and accountability.. > > I am not targeting this at anyone, or even Embacardo.. I dont have a > problem with the pricing of Pro At all, and if I ever upgrade.. $1000 here > or there means nothing to me for the value it provides.. but at whatever > price they set, they should make sure that it works for its intention.. to > claim that at the time of release it is "Fit for no particular purpose" is > crap, and a very singular reason to make me want to quit delphi in the > future.. the purpose is to allow me to make application Rapidly and > successfully RAD.. if there are issues that slow me down.. its failing. > > > > > On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 3:49 PM, Richard Vowles < > rich...@developers-inc.co.nz> wrote: > >> Comparing software development to plumbing is a road to madness, surely? >> Thats almost certainly like saying software development is an engineering >> discipline, which it has clearly been disproved from being. >> >> Delphi consists, last I heard, of 26000 different source files - to expect >> that entire tree to be "bug free" is questionable in the least. Besides, a >> bug is defined as being something that does not meet the requirements. Given >> Delphi's "set of requirements" for shipping is determined at the point of >> shipping, technically it meets those requirements and thus has no bugs. All >> subsequent "patches" are, technically, not bug fixes but requirements >> changes. As the quality of requirements set by Borland were clearly much >> lower than people would generally consider acceptable (for Delphi 2005, and >> most certainly for Delphi 8), that is really a mismatch in requirements >> expectations. Remember, we are talking *Borland* here, not *Embarcadero*. >> Embarcadero, I think, has a pretty good track record, and a much higher bar. >> But even E have "feature defects" they consider acceptable when shipping. >> Everyone does. >> >> As an interesting aside, Support and Maintenance on Delphi (and all IDEs >> from Borland and I am assuming from E but I haven't closely looked at the >> T's&C's) *specifically exclude* bug fixes. Included are new versions and >> workarounds (if possible). S&M is also only provided two versions earlier >> from the current version (from memory) meaning even D2006 is excluded from >> the attempts for workarounds. >> >> I'm sorry, but I would not commit to writing an application and then >> fixing any things its users considered bugs gratis for eternity. I would >> consider it reasonable for 3 months as long as it was agreed to in the >> original payment schedule, but I would *certainly* not expect it after 18 >> months. In the case of a development tool, with the importance of supporting >> technology, I would expect new releases every 18 months and would be >> concerned if I did not see new releases coming out from the vendor. >> >> Richard >> >> 2009/9/19 Kyley Harris <kyleyhar...@gmail.com> >> >>> Paul. I agree 100% a professional software company, E, should not charge >>> 1cent to license holders for genuine bug fixes and should package free >>> releases independantly of feature releases until they are fixed. Otherwise >>> they are not professional anything >>> >>> When I pay my plumber to fix a leak. I don't expect to have to pay him to >>> fix the new secondary leaks he caused by being a bad plumber >>> >> >> -- >> --- >> Richard Vowles, Technical Advisor >> Developers Inc Ltd >> web. http://www.developers-inc.co.nz >> ph. +64-9-3600231, mob. +64-275-467747, fax. +64-9-3600384 >> skype. rvowles, LinkedIn, Twitter >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list >> Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz >> Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi >> Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: >> unsubscribe >> > > > > -- > Kyley Harris > Harris Software > +64-21-671-821 > -- Kyley Harris Harris Software +64-21-671-821
_______________________________________________ NZ Borland Developers Group - Delphi mailing list Post: delphi@delphi.org.nz Admin: http://delphi.org.nz/mailman/listinfo/delphi Unsubscribe: send an email to delphi-requ...@delphi.org.nz with Subject: unsubscribe
