So sayeth the Book of Torrez, "Been Away!  Just caught up!."
 DT> First on that comes to mind is the C++ is evil issues, *.* languages
 DT> are better than C++.
 I'll take a look at the site.  The bottom line is, however, use the
 language which best suits the project - not which language is
 subjectively "best" since one language doesn't suit all work.  I'm sure
 you already know this, being a software professional.
 DT> Second is Borland C++, speaking Win32 of course.  At the recent BorCon
 DT> (Borland Convention) someone aske about the future of OWL.  Borland
 DT> Rep said something to the tune of this:
 Small world... I was at BorCon too.  It looks like you were at the
 C++Builder: Meet the C++Builder Team session.  We may have been in the
 same room.  Very small world.
 DT> MY ANALYSIS OF DIANE'S RESPONSE
 DT> -------------------------------
 MY ANALYSIS OF DIANE
 --------------------
 Major babe.  :)
 
 Looks, brains and she knows C++.
 DT> I was pleased with Diane's answers--not because she said what I wanted
 DT> to hear, but because I thought she was as direct as Borland could be
 DT> about a tricky question.  It seems to me that, while Borland
 DT> will make some effort to support OWL users with their existing code,
 DT> they have no plans for further development in the OWL code base.
 DT> If the OWL code base is to receive further development, it will
 DT> be in the hands of some other company.  I think Diane made that as
 DT> clear as she reasonably could.
 Personally, I don' think she could have made it any clearer.  It was
 almost as if she were looking for a volunteer to take OWL right there
 at the conference.
 DT> In my view, their new stand implies that run-of-the-mill OWL bugs
 DT> will probably no longer be addressed. Certainly Borland would prefer
 DT> not to spread their development energy sparsely over two C++
 DT> compiler products with many overlapping features. I can speculate
 DT> that if upcoming releases of the operating system substantially
 DT> break OWL, Borland will probably want to make some fixes, but
 DT> otherwise I don't think OWL will get much development from Borland.
 Especially with the Borland focus on the BCL.  Personally, I don't like
 the idea of C++ Builder building applications which call into
 Delphi/Object Pascal code, but it looks like I have little choice since
 it was also made clear that the BCL would not be ported to C++.  That's
 going to hurt Borland in the area of cross platform C++ development.
 My company currently writes one source code base in C++ which can be
 used on the PC and several flavors of Unix.  We are simply not going to
 be able to use C++ Builder for any work on that project due to the
 Object Pascal BCL.
 DT> Furthermore, Borland is obviously positioning C++Builder as its
 DT> primary C++ product.  In the initial keynote address, a slide that
 DT> listed the company's products showed C++Builder but not Borland
 DT> C++.  It's significant that the session where Diane Rogers intro-
 DT> duced some of the C++ engineers was called "Meet the C++Builder
 DT> Team."  There wasn't a "Meet the Borland C++ Team."  My impression
 DT> is that Borland C++ is no longer strategic to Borland, meaning
 DT> they don't think they can make much money from it now.  They're
 DT> probably right.  I also think that if they do a good job in the
 DT> next release of C++Builder, those of us who are real Borland C++
 DT> fans will feel quite comfortable in the new product.  Moving
 DT> to C++Builder is easy for many projects even now.
                   
 It was my impression that C++ Builder could be called Borland C++ 6, 
 like they were wrapping Builder around the BC++ IDE.  I'm forced to use
 mostly MS products, so I've had little exposure to BC++ 5.
 DT> Well, even the US Government uses ADA!
 Not as much as you would think.   The company I work for is a defense
 contractor.  We write code in C++, Object Pascal (Delphi), FoxPro, even
 QuakeC.  Out of the 10 or so projects going on at any one time over the
 three years I've worked at the company, not one has ever been in Ada.
 What do you think about the IBM AS/400?  I noticed that IBM was pushing
 it, and even Borland was pushing it.  That's probably due to expanding
 their compilers & IDEs to support that machine.  As far as I can tell,
 it's comparable to a high end pentium machine, or a low end mini.
 -=Kevin=-
 Fidonet: 1:363/309   TAGnet : 21:320/0     IntraTec: 191:670/0
 JAMNet : 75:82/1     BegNet : 44:244/702   SinNet  : 18:28/1
 Homepage:  http://www.commercialweb.com
 Internet:  kyochum@worldramp.net
 Internet:  kevin.yochum%309@satlink.oau.org
--- Blue Wave/386 v2.20
---------------