On 06/01/2007, at 10:46 AM, Norman Palardy wrote:
MW ditched their entire previous line of compilers for Modula and
other languages when they started building CW from what I know
I could easily see them having issues at that point and for quite
some time til the developer releases were into several revisions
No, I think the problems came later, in the year or so before the
Motorola buyout.
Eclipse and Xcode are decent free environments and may have totally
sunk MW for desktop platforms
But they have a ton of embedded stuff and were also the suppliers
of some game SDK's so they may have just moved into different products
and AFAIK FreeScale are continuing to develop and ship those very
embedded products, according to an embedded guy I was talking to just
before Christmas.
One thing that is overlooked in this is even if there were bugs in
the frameworks you got all the source so it could be fixed right away
Absolutely!
I was in shock for some time at the discovery that Cocoa didn't
include source.
"Closed-Source Cocoa - Arrogance, Empowerment or Commercial Necessity?"
http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=167444
I made some fairly significant contributions to PowerPlant because of
the timeframe in which we were using it (for the major cross-platform
app in which the OOFILE report witer and GUI were developed) and my
involvement with AppMaker. I also wrote the PowerPlant code generator
for MarksMan (nee Prototyper) and being able to look at the source
code was vital in working out some side effects of things I was using.
A lot of people don't realise that Microsoft ship the source code of
MFC and that too has been very valuable at times when debugging.
The frameworks in RB are closed and bugs are sometimes allowed to
persist for fairly long times.
If they were open then it would not be an issue as a developer
could submit a bug report and a fix and fix it for themselves and
move on.
But they can't so bug fixing needs to take a higher priority than
it might for a tool like the PowerPlant frameworks.
Whilst the RB frameworks are (AFAIK) largely written in C++, it would
still be very useful to have access to them.
Access to framework source is the kind of thing that WOULD prompt me
to pay for Developer membership.
I suspect that the overhead of having to publish the frameworks and
build instructions would pay off for RS VERY quickly in terms of
contributed patches, especially if it was filtered by being part of a
developer program (nothing stops them directly offering free
developer program membership to selected community members, before
someone starts bleating about cost barriers).
Hmm, OK, so that's prompted me to start lobbying them
http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=hmhjjnxn
Andy Dent BSc MACS http://www.oofile.com.au/
OOFILE - Database, Reports, Graphs, GUI for c++ on multiple platforms
REALbasic, Python, Mac and Windows development and porting
_______________________________________________
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>
