Borland CBuilderX for OS/2?

Borland CBuilderX for OS/2?

Post by Dav » Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:47:27



I just purchased Borland CBuilderX for my home PC. It consists of a
java based ide and native code executables for Win32, Linux, and x86
Sun Solaris. It also has the wxWindows library.

Why couldn't a OS/2 developer 'port' CBuilderX to OS/2? It would only
require anding GCC for OS/2 and the OS/2 wxWindows library. This would
help existing OS/2 programmer create applications for multiple
platforms.

 
 
 

Borland CBuilderX for OS/2?

Post by Stefan Nei » Sat, 22 Nov 2003 02:47:21



> Why couldn't a OS/2 developer 'port' CBuilderX to OS/2?

I see two problems:
1. Lack of time on the part of OS/2 developers.
2. wxWindows for OS/2 is still far from reaching production level quality
   (which takes us back to 1.).

Quote:> It would only require anding GCC for OS/2 and the OS/2 wxWindows library.

If you can talk Borland or whomever into  paying somebody for working full
time on wxWindows, wxWindows for OS/2 might actually be up to the needs of
CBuilderX within a year (or maybe even less; working on it at weekends in
addition to a normal full-time job that's "totally unrelated" to wxWindows
might cause a certain loss in precision when estimating how long it would
take if somebody worked full-time on it) and _then_ we could start talking
about what "it only requires".

However, given IBM's plans for OS/2 and its future it seems unlikely that
anybody is willing to make such an investment.

Quote:> This would help existing OS/2 programmer create applications for multiple
> platforms.

More important, from the user point of view, it would help other programmers
to compile their software for OS/2 just as well.

        Regards,
                Stefan
--
Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.

 
 
 

Borland CBuilderX for OS/2?

Post by Dav » Sun, 23 Nov 2003 14:57:50


Thank you for beating down my suggestion. You have successfully
destroyed any motivation I had. No wonder OS/2 is dead, nobody cares
anymore.

Fine..



> > Why couldn't a OS/2 developer 'port' CBuilderX to OS/2?

> I see two problems:
> 1. Lack of time on the part of OS/2 developers.
> 2. wxWindows for OS/2 is still far from reaching production level quality
>    (which takes us back to 1.).

> > It would only require anding GCC for OS/2 and the OS/2 wxWindows library.

> If you can talk Borland or whomever into  paying somebody for working full
> time on wxWindows, wxWindows for OS/2 might actually be up to the needs of
> CBuilderX within a year (or maybe even less; working on it at weekends in
> addition to a normal full-time job that's "totally unrelated" to wxWindows
> might cause a certain loss in precision when estimating how long it would
> take if somebody worked full-time on it) and _then_ we could start talking
> about what "it only requires".

> However, given IBM's plans for OS/2 and its future it seems unlikely that
> anybody is willing to make such an investment.

> > This would help existing OS/2 programmer create applications for multiple
> > platforms.

> More important, from the user point of view, it would help other programmers
> to compile their software for OS/2 just as well.

>    Regards,
>            Stefan

 
 
 

Borland CBuilderX for OS/2?

Post by William L. Hartzel » Sun, 23 Nov 2003 15:27:13


Sir:


> Thank you for beating down my suggestion. You have successfully
> destroyed any motivation I had. No wonder OS/2 is dead, nobody cares
> anymore.

That is reality.  But if you wish to work on this, please do as then you
can change the perception of this reality.
--
Bill
Thanks a Million!
 
 
 

Borland CBuilderX for OS/2?

Post by Stefan Nei » Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:51:42



> Thank you for beating down my suggestion. You have successfully
> destroyed any motivation I had. No wonder OS/2 is dead, nobody cares
> anymore.

Actually, there are people that do - like myself. I'm investing quite
a bit of my free time into wxWindows - but having a full time job,
that isn't very much time if you look at it in an objective way. Say 8
hours per week. David Webster, who did the largest part of wxOS2 currently
has no time at all (and didn't have any for the last 8 or 9 months), but
hopes to be able to work at it next year, again.

With that speed of development, it is going to take a long time to finish
wxOS2. If we could find more contributors or if somebody would put some
funding into it, development could easily be speeded up by a factor of 5 or
more.

I did not intend to destroy your motivation, I just wanted to clarify that
a fully working wxWindows port for OS/2 won't materialize out of the middle
of nowhere - you either need (lots of) patience or (lots of) money. :-(

Just having everybody fantasize about how great a finished wxWindows port
would be, was motivating some time ago, but meanwhile it's only frustrating
to see that nonetheless nobody is willing to invest anything into it.

BTW, I do believe that meanwhile the non-GUI related parts (sockets, threads,
file handling) really are useable, so I'm probably going to make use of it
even for my job, but the GUI-related parts are unfortunately still far
away from this status. Personally, I currently still prefer wxGTK versions
of some current software over the native versions.

Hm, actually, adding wxGTK/OS2 support to CBuilderX might be an idea ...

        Regards,
                Stefan
--
Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.

 
 
 

1. Borland C++ for OS/2 = Borland C++ for Windows?

Hi,

We are developing a large system for Windows NT 3.5 and use Borland's
C++ 4.5 and OWL for it. Since we will be doing the same system for OS/2
later this year we are interested in knowing how easy it is to port a
Windows program written with OWL to OS/2.

Our local Borland dealer says it's going to compile 'just like that' but I
don't believe him for a second. Borland's add says it is 'fast and easy' but
there are I few things that make me suspicious. Like for example Windows
programs and OS/2 PM programs use a different coodinate system. Windows origo
is at the upper left corner while OS/2's is in the lower left corner. And
y-coordinate grows at different directions.

Also OWL relies heavily on Win32 API's parameters and constants. The OWL
help may describe the function behaviour and parameters but very often we
need to look at the equivalient Win32 API-function to see what values to
put in those parameters. Having programmed with OS/2 for four years now I've
noticed a lot of other small but important differences as well.

Because the OWL seems to be so strongly related to Win32 API functions how
is it going to be easy to port the program to OS/2?

Is it so that the OS/2 version of OWL is using the Win32 API
styled parameters and for example Windows coordinate system? Or is it so
that the OS/2 version uses the stuff familiar to OS/2 programmers, which of
course seems more rational?

In that case, how is it going to be fast and easy to port, say 30000 lines
of Windows OWL code to OS/ OWL? (Fast and easy is of course very relative.)

Any help from programmers familiar with OWL is greatly appreciated.

        Mikko Oksalahti         "The last time I was inside of
        University of Helsinki   a woman was when I visited
        Comp. Sci. Dept.         the Statue of Liberty."

        FINLAND                 -Woody Allen in "Crimes and Misdemeanors"

2. Inserted drawing position

3. NEW BORLAND FTP SITE FTP.BORLAND.COM

4. Simple MDI SDK question.

5. Borland 4.02 under OS/2 for WinDOZE (2.11 of OS/2 and 2.1 of Win-OS)

6. Pocket PC 2002 walkthrough...

7. OS/2 USER GROUP MEETING: Halifax, NS - 30 Nov. - Topic: Borland does OS/2

8. WTB: Flicker Fixer (UK please)

9. Borland C++ for OS/2: where is the OS/2 PM resource compiler?

10. OS/2 USER GROUP MEETING: Halifax, NS - 30 Nov. - Topic: Borland Does OS/2

11. OS/2 USER GROUP MEETING: Nov 30, Halifax, NS Topic: Borland does OS/2