Live data from Hacker News

Why did Borland fail?

quora.com

201–210 of 269 posts

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#201
post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then you have no idea about the current state of intelligent, realtime code analysis. Any old Java IDE should be able to rename length to size on an interface and have all the classes that implement that interface update the name, then have all the places that calls it update to use the new name. Try that with rename and you will quickly run into trouble, unless you have only one class that has a method called length…

This is still a rename operation. I have difficulty understanding how this would require an IDE for anything but the more complex codebases, and even then, I would much prefer a discrete code server. Refactoring is still in its infancy. A), it's not entirely possible on C/C++ because of macros. B), they are serialized extremely poorly to diffs, so any boon from refactoring is sidestepped by SCM. C), most of the refac…

It would seem that you've not used Resharper. Best refactoring tool I've ever seen. Actually seems like they are forcing the Visual Studio team to pick up their game.

> (e.g. type signature changes are painful as hell) Resharper handles this very well.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC, JBuilder cost almost $500 back then. Eclipse initially wasn't better but open (for extensions) and gratis.

A license for IntelliJ for a company is currently 499 euro. Admitably it still gets you much more than JBuilder would have - including support for 7 or so additional languages - but it is not even close to cheap. If you are buying for yourself, then it is 199 euro which is less than half the price (although that doesn't include VAT).

That seems really high... The last time I reupped my personal IntelliJ license it was about $100 USD.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#203
post #6
post #3

Compilers used to be something you paid money for. It took a while, but open source and I would say gcc in particular killed that. It's funny how gcc was around for a long time, but it was only in the 2000s that cash cow compilers started dying. I think that coincides a bit with Linux and OS X becoming popular for developers. For example, it wasn't until 2005 that Microsoft started providing a VS express SKU. You see…

I remember in the 90s advocating for things like gcc and the absolute scorn I would receive. "A free compiler!!! What kind of crap must that be??". You paid for compilers, you paid for your version control, you paid for your bug tracker, and that was that. Interestingly, at that company (a defense contractor) it was the government more than anything that changed that attitude. There were a lot of projects initiated b…

If the VS debugger is king of the hill, then it must be really grim out there. At least half the time, I'm using printf debugging because actually running in the debugger brings my entire machine (16 GB RAM, quad-core intel) to a standstill.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#204
post #185
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And some young people parroting how wonderful Microsoft and Bill Gates are today. Compared to what Microsoft used to be like - recently Microsoft has made some pretty, surprising, awesome moves. Specifically their open source movement (including .Net). You would never have seen that 10-20 years ago. I'm sure if you walked into Gates's office and said "I think we should open source this" - I have a feeling he would…

I've said this before (and was downvoted naturally): Microsoft's new Open Source strategy needs to be viewed with exactly the same amount of suspicion as IBM's and Oracle's. It may just be a move to reduce their expenses, since they may get unpaid software contributions and testing (Oracle's CEO pretty much admitted this in an interview).

I view it as an attack on the LAMP stack. Mono with self-hosted HTTP throw OWIN seems like a killer option. Let's face it, C# is a much better language for development than Java.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#205
post #185
post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And some young people parroting how wonderful Microsoft and Bill Gates are today. Compared to what Microsoft used to be like - recently Microsoft has made some pretty, surprising, awesome moves. Specifically their open source movement (including .Net). You would never have seen that 10-20 years ago. I'm sure if you walked into Gates's office and said "I think we should open source this" - I have a feeling he would…

I've said this before (and was downvoted naturally): Microsoft's new Open Source strategy needs to be viewed with exactly the same amount of suspicion as IBM's and Oracle's. It may just be a move to reduce their expenses, since they may get unpaid software contributions and testing (Oracle's CEO pretty much admitted this in an interview).

[deleted]

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#206
post #77
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inverse is also true.

The inverse is the same. Losing $1mil can either mean: a) losing 10000 customers b) losing 1 customer. What do you pick? There are more customers who can afford 100$ than 1mil. That's the important factor, not the way you want to present the numbers.

I think he meant with inverse. a) winning 10000 customers b) winning 1 customer.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is refactoring a bad thing now?

>> Do you really think the best programmers spend enough time refactoring for the use of an IDE to help? > Is refactoring a bad thing now? It isn't, he just intended that the best programmers refactor less (since they are the best they must get things right or better predict the future more often then the others).

Seems rather unlikely. Do they only have to work on code written by themselves or other great programmers?

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#208
It was for quite similar reasons that Live Picture failed.

We had a good product with fanatically devoted users; graphic artists persisted with LP on Mac OS 9 for years after Mac OS X came into common use.

The problem was that former Apple and Pepsi CEO John Sculley was a major invester. Live Picture's image editing product, also called Live Picture - was regarded as a tool by Wall Street and as Sculley told us one day, "The street does not value tools companies".

So he tried to turn us into some manner of internet company so we could have a big IPO. Really the best he could come up with was that our - admittedly superior - competitor to apple's quicktime VR be used over the web for consumer product research.

He actually showed us a demo that depicted a virtual convenience store shelf in which one could use the mouse to pick up a tube of toothpaste than look it over.

LP original retailed for $4k but at the time it was $600. So he was going to drop a wildly popular six hundred dollar product so we could make a little coin by measuring websurfer response to animated toothpaste?

The $4K to $600 pricing drop was also a serious problem. While $4K was definitely too expensive, dropping the price so abruptly alienated our early adopters.

A while after I left LP, I found a Java memory leak detection tool called I think Optimize-It. And yes garbage collected languages do suffer memory leaks if you don't know what you're doing, often seriously so as when I had to configure a job to reboot a client's server because it kept running out of swap space.

Optimize-It was independently developed and published at first but Borland acquired it, then sold it for quite a lot of money.

While a tool like that is indeed valuable, it's a lot cheaper to just reboot your server every night at midnight.

It should have sold for maybe $200 rather than the thousands of dollars that Borland charged.

I am quite sad as Borland, Live Picture, Microport, Seagate and the Santa Cruz Operation once offered really good tech employment to Santa Cruz County.

There are other companies there now so it's not like there is no work, but attempting to transform what really was a tools company so it would sell during the internet bubble threw well over fifty hard-working, incredibly dedicated and talented people out of work.

A coworker and good friend became homeless and quite desperate. I am pleased to report he did finally find a job and so was able to pay for a place to live but when I spoke to him while he was homeless he had lost all hope of survival. Someone like him should never have been homeless.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#209
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someone should tell JetBrains the whole IDE market is dead.

I'm not saying the market is still dead, but for a company like Borland, 10 years ago there was nothing they could have done to recover from Eclipse taking over the market. Even then, IntelliJ was a relative niche product (compared to the vast ubiquity of Eclipse), and JetBrains did diversify their product portfolio to both more aspects of the development lifecycle and to more specialized needs in IDEs. Anyway, my po…

I regard Eclipse as a tool of the Devil. I'll be taking up Android again soon. Every time I try I find Eclipse giving me the goatse but now I'm going to use TextWrangler and Ant.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#210
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A coworker introduced me to PyCharm after years of development in vim, and it has been an incredible productivity boost. It's painful to watch coworkers slowly fiddle around with text editors. I almost don't like telling people this because it's such a professional competitive advantage for me after switching. Even my coworkers using Sublime run into pain points that I don't (perhaps because they aren't installing al…

It's almost professional negligence. I had the same situation 15+ years ago when Eclipse was coming out and Java was on the rise. We really didn't know Java all that well and so Eclipse's auto-completion and doc popups were a godsend. The guy sitting there with Vi(m) was bogging down beyond belief. It got to the point, where we had to sit him down and tell him he needs to use the right tool for the job or get lost. I…

From hat I've seen I'll disagree. The people that use vim efficiently [emacs users just substitute emacs] don't just use vim. They are also very efficient using the surrounding (Unixoid) environment. Specifically file searching...I'm not sure IDEs have an edge there.

These days there's also things like eclim. I don't know it seems like vim style editing is still the best way to get around the codebase and actually work with the text but IDEs have great integration to work with the code. So I think the optimal solution is a "best of both worlds" approach which means a vim-plugin for the IDE or an IDEfeatures-plugin for vim. I see the former setup a lot.

--- and my wild guess is that emacs actually has great code integration for Lisps. I don't know what the state of the art Lisp IDE is but I'd be shocked if it was better than emacs.

Post reply on HN