Live data from Hacker News

Why did Borland fail?

quora.com

261–269 of 269 posts

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Borland was also many times JetBrains' headcount at its peak, and even today is significantly larger. It doesn't follow that because a market supports a company of one size, it must also support a company of a much larger size.

Exactly. I also wonder whether it would even have been possible to start Jetbrains in the US. Being based in the Czech Republic gave them a much lower cost structure, and in the beginning, competing with Eclipse's free price tag meant noone could ever have supported a sizable company in the US.

Czech Republic is just a registration place. JetBrains is based in St Petersburg, Russia. Until recently all the developers were in St Petersburg, then some people moved to Germany. JetBrains was started as a small startup and then absorbed people from St Petersburg office of Borland.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's amazing that in 2015 we have people that use Emacs, Vim, or other editors that don't have intelligent, realtime code analysis and we consider that "hardcore, programmer machismo"." What is amazing is that in 2015 there is people out there that believes Vim or Emacs have no intelligent, realtime analysis. In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that k…

In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that know how to use them and are trained on them. I develop Cursive, an IDE based on IntelliJ for Clojure code. Its completion and navigation are categorically better than Emacs's, even for a language that supposedly has one of the best levels of support under Emacs. To say that Emacs is automatically better than ev…

I have nothing against Cursive, and in fact, have been eying it from afar. But this kind of comment is just needlessly dismissive with little in the way of substance, as far as I can tell. Would you like to expand on what these features that Cursive has that are "Categorically better" than Emacs'?

I'm not saying there isn't any, and certainly I've used better refactoring tools than https://github.com/clojure-emacs/clj-refactor.el in other languages. But what on earth is wrong with the navigation? The main advantage I've seen form a colleague is the highlighting automatically of usages, but I'm pretty sure I can set that up in Emacs too.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay approx that for Idea. So people will pay that if the product is good.

I've never seen IntelliJ IDEA in an enterprise environment. Eclipse is good enough and gratis.

What? Every enterprise shop I worked at, devs could pick Eclipse or Idea. I am pretty sure I would be a day 1 walkout if I was told it was an eclipse only shop.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#264
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay approx that for Idea. So people will pay that if the product is good.

Hopefully you pay far less than that now: Their prices have come down. But yes, it used to be a $600 product, that was totally worth it to many developers, because of how much better it was than Eclipse. In a world full of boilerplate like Java, IntelliJ's intentions just saved so much time. I remember asking companies that were using Eclipse to please let me use my own license of IntelliJ, because just what alt + ta…

https://www.jetbrains.com/idea/buy/

A commercial new license is $500.

Not sure where you get the big price drop from ;) And yes, it is easily worth $500.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#265
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that know how to use them and are trained on them. I develop Cursive, an IDE based on IntelliJ for Clojure code. Its completion and navigation are categorically better than Emacs's, even for a language that supposedly has one of the best levels of support under Emacs. To say that Emacs is automatically better than ev…

I have nothing against Cursive, and in fact, have been eying it from afar. But this kind of comment is just needlessly dismissive with little in the way of substance, as far as I can tell. Would you like to expand on what these features that Cursive has that are "Categorically better" than Emacs'? I'm not saying there isn't any, and certainly I've used better refactoring tools than https://github.com/clojure-emacs/cl…

I have nothing against Emacs either, and I didn't say that there was anything wrong with its navigation. What I said was the assertion that Emacs and Vim have the best realtime analysis is just wrong - most Emacs modes have none at all.

If you're interested in the implementation of this sort of functionality in Emacs, Steve Yegge's article on implementing JS2 mode is really interesting: http://steve-yegge.blogspot.co.nz/2008/03/js2-mode-new-javas.... He says at the end that IntelliJ's JavaScript support is just better, and it's very clear from the article how difficult it is to retrofit this sort of functionality into something that isn't built from the start to support it.

But you're right that the tone of my comment wasn't great, and in general getting involved in these discussions is just a bad idea. Every so often I see a comment that makes it difficult to resist, but I always regret it.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#266
post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, in year 2015 Emacs and Vim have the best real time, intelligent analysis out there for those that know how to use them and are trained on them. I develop Cursive, an IDE based on IntelliJ for Clojure code. Its completion and navigation are categorically better than Emacs's, even for a language that supposedly has one of the best levels of support under Emacs. To say that Emacs is automatically better than ev…

I have nothing against Cursive, and in fact, have been eying it from afar. But this kind of comment is just needlessly dismissive with little in the way of substance, as far as I can tell. Would you like to expand on what these features that Cursive has that are "Categorically better" than Emacs'? I'm not saying there isn't any, and certainly I've used better refactoring tools than https://github.com/clojure-emacs/cl…

But what on earth is wrong with the navigation?

To answer this specific question - Cursive's Java interop support is much better than anything else I'm aware of. It implements Clojure's type inference in the editor, so method calls are accurately resolved to the right method based on the number and types of the parameters, and completion takes this into account so that you can explore Java APIs almost as well as with Java in IntelliJ. Cross-language navigation and Find Usages works - in Cursive you can navigate from RT.var() calls to the Clojure code, and Find Usages from Clojure will find the RT.var() calls. This also works for other JVM languages - there are quite a few Cursive users with mixed Clojure/Scala codebases, and this all works there.

You can search for all usages of a particular keyword, and it will also find all local bindings destructured from it using :keys. Namespaces will be auto-required during completion based on examples elsewhere in your project, not hard-coded config. This works in the REPL too - you can type str/tr and when it's completed into str/trim Cursive will automatically (require '[clojure.string :as str]) in your REPL.

One other nice thing is that since Cursive works from source, pretty much everything that works for Clojure works for CLJS too.

There's lots more along the same lines, hopefully this gives you an idea. Again, there's nothing wrong per se with Emacs' navigation, but IntelliJ just provides a much more sophisticated infrastructure for it. Obviously elisp is Turing-complete so all this could in theory be implemented but it's much harder, as Yegge describes in the article I linked in my other comment. The clj-refactor guys are doing a great job but the lack of a good indexing infrastructure is going to mean that a lot of this functionality is hard or impossible to implement.

Emacs is a great choice for a lot of people and if you're willing to invest the time to trick it out and maintain it, especially for Clojure you can get a really nice environment. But probably the feature that most people like about Cursive is that it just works out of the box, and stays working with no messing around and no development of your editor required. And WRT my original comment - to say that Emacs has the most sophisticated runtime analysis is just wrong.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#267
post #16

As a former Borland employee (not for very long, 2006-2009, and actually working in their Austrian offices, which originally became part of the company through the Segue acquisition), I certainly didn't have the complete picture, but our managers, even going as far as those located in Cupertino, and later Austin, were quite open about what Borland's issue was: even with the rise of Java, they thought they could conti…

Someone should tell JetBrains the whole IDE market is dead.

JetBrains sells $99 IDEs like in the Turbo Pascal days. The current producer of Borland's Delphi, Embarcadero, sell the product for a minimum of $1000 plus a subscription is now required to get ANY bug fixes at all! Accessing a client/server database is a $500 add-on (or upgrade to the $2000 package), etc. Delphi Professional + c/s add-on plus subscription runs about $2147 the last time I checked!

Who in 2015 pays $2,147 to be able to develop software? Note that you'll need to spend even more to target mobile and there's no Linux solution yet either.

Delphi users refuse to accept it (or that mobile or web are here to stay, or that there are better VCS systems than subversion, which is the only VCS that Delphi's IDE fully supports) but the days of the expensive, proprietary IDE are indeed dead. MS releasing a free VS Community Edition was just the final nail in the coffin.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I pay approx that for Idea. So people will pay that if the product is good.

Want to buy Delphi today from EMBT? At minimum you'll need Delphi Professional at over $1000. Want to access something other than SQLite via their database system? Well, to avoid upgrading to the $2000 price point you'll need the $500 Client/Server add-on that also brings things like (awful) JSON support. Note you're out of luck if you want things like HTML parsing, which still isn't in the standard library. You have to get a subscription now to get ANY bug fix updates (!!!), so that's several hundred more dollars. Now you're looking at an entry fee of about $2,147 for one (niche) language which hasn't seen a commercially published book since 2005 (seriously). And it doesn't end there. There's only a crippleware bundle for profiling (no 64bit support), so if you want a top, 64bit profiler that's another pricey $600 or $800 from a third party. There's no documentation generation support, so you're going to need to spend $200-$300 for that from another third party (I've seen $300 options that can't output PDF). HTML parsing? $60. There's an open source mega-framework that has support for ORM and web, but if you don't use that you're again looking at three-digit costs for each. Want matrices and math, statistics or data mining? That's about another $500 apiece with source code. There's no official testing framework and the one major open source one died so now there are many somewhat-compatible options you're going to have to hunt through on SourceForge. Oh, version control? Only full support for Subversion. There's finally some GIT support, but only local - you can't push to github or another central server with it. The IDE is buggy and you can't even redefine all of the keys (!!!!!!!!!! - yes the only IDE on earth that won't let you remap keystrokes) so you need more third party plugins that offer UI fixes, unofficial bug fixes and some remapping support.

It goes on and on. When I considered it for a project the cost came out to almost $5000! Instead we went full open source (including JetBrains' open source version of PyCharm) and got lots of functionality one couldn't find at any price on the Delphi platform - which incidentally is, just now in 2015, beginning to set up package management. Unfortunately it will be tightly controlled by Embarcadero and they've issued all sorts of warnings about not approving code that replaces functionality in Delphi (in short, they're afraid of competition). The community has no control over the language or the product and the diehards that are left treat it like a religion. They have something called "MVPs" who actually sign a contract to never disparage the language or Embarcdero! In exchange for selling their integrity they get free copies of the product. Completely coincidentally, they'll tell you that the product isn't overpriced. They'll also tell you it's used all over but no one talks about it because "it's their secret weapon". Delphi's product manager told me that he fully believes that "Delphi has had a greater impact on the business world than Python ever has". You not only have to pay all that money, you have to deal with the Scientology of programming languages. :-(

So no, you pay far more than for IntelliJ, you have no control over the product, you have no working roadmap, you don't even have RELEASE DATES for new versions. It's a whole other world over there than what the rest of us are used to.

Re: Why did Borland fail?

#269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work on a large C++ codebase in emacs. I find emacs keybindings and extensibility (via elisp) far superior to any IDE - and I have tried Eclipse, CLion (IDEA for C++), Code/Blocks and Netbeans. For C/C++ specifically, the state of code analysis in emacs has greatly improved due to clang. For example, I get full auto-complete (including for variables declared 'auto') in emacs with irony-mode [0] for code completion,…

CLion is only a few months old and can be considered to be a 1.0 release, its already growing more and more capability on each minor update. I use PhpStorm, cLion and PyCharm, and im happy to pay for them, the editor itself is very high quality and having common tools across all the 3 languages i use is great. If only they did a "golang" IDE.

You can use the Go plugin for almost any IDE based on the IntelliJ Platform, that includes CLion and Android Studio. And the best of all, it's free. Give it a try by installing it: https://github.com/go-lang-plugin-org/go-lang-idea-plugin
Post reply on HN