[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       boost
Subject:    [boost] Re: Re: metacomm regressions: which borland version
From:       "Edward Diener" <eddielee () tropicsoft ! com>
Date:       2004-05-28 23:38:34
Message-ID: c98ihr$q0s$1 () sea ! gmane ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Vladimir Prus wrote:
> Edward Diener wrote:
>
>>>       Assertion failed ..... config_file.cpp(144) :
>>> isTmplSpecSym(sym) ....
>>>
>>> I've just installed CBuilderX Personal, and tried to compile the
>>> library with that compiler. The interesting thing is that compiler
>>> has 5.6.4 as version string, the symbol __BORLANDC__ is defined to
>>> be 0x0564, but I don't get that error, and get some other errors.
>>> What could be the reason?
>>
>> The base CBX Personal uses the exact same compiler as C++ Builder 6.
>
> Hmm.. then the different results are a mistery for me.
>
>> There
>> is an update on Borland's site for installing the new 6.0 version of
>> the compiler for CBX. However I honestly don't feel that Borland is
>> working on C++ any more and would not be surprised if they just
>> dropped the product instead of letting it die a slow death.
>
> Why do you think so? And does it mean there's no point in supporting
> borland?

Borland has dropped support for C++ Builder. Their new product, CBX, is
essentially a beta-version product with little functionality and grossly
overpriced. They promised letters detailing how they would support their C++
Builder customers but never delivered them. Essentially they are doing
nothing to support C++ anymore. I personally would not count on them to
deliver anything in the C++ arena but you are free to support whatever they
have of course. For myself, as a former C++ Builder customer, I will not be
wasting any time supporting them in any way in the future unless they
drastically change their commitment and attitude to the C++ language. But I
very much doubt this will happen.




[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]