Re: Delphi 2.0 vs. Powerbuilder 5.0

From: Michael D. Kersey <mdkersey_at_hal-pc.org>
Date: 1996/07/06
Message-ID: <31DF5018.276B_at_hal-pc.org>

J D wrote:
>
> it's http://netserv.borland.com/News/techlib/delvspowr/delvpowr.html
>
> > "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey_at_hal-pc.org> wrote in article
 <31DEA83D.5CE8_at_hal-pc.org>...
> > Glenn Nicholas wrote:
> <snipped>

Hello Everyone,
Look what I got in the mail only a few hours after posting my note above. And from Borland yet. My comments are below:

---

> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 1996 18:36:17 GMT
> From: "Steve Koterski" <koterski_at_borland.com>
> Reply-To: koterski_at_borland.com

>Organization: Borland International, Delphi Tech Support 


>          To: "Michael D. Kersey" <mdkersey_at_hal-pc.org>

> References: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5

>
>On Sat, 06 Jul 1996 10:54:05 -0700, you wrote:
>
>> Glenn Nicholas wrote:
>> Borland have produced a detailed paper which compares PB5 and Delphi2.
>> Delphi is a very strong product - Borland claims it outsold PowerBuilder
>> by almost 3 to 1.  Once you look into it, I think you will quickly see
>> what all the fuss is about.
>>
>> See www.borland.com/News/techlib/delvsporwr/delvpowr.ht
>> ml.
>>Hi Glenn,
>
>I could not find the above URL. Maybe they have nothing to say...
>
>There was a typographical error in the original poster's reference to the
>URL in question. It should be:
>

> http://www.borland.com/News/techlib/delvspowr/delvpowr.html

>
>**************************************************************************
>Steve Koterski                   "It is a damn poor mind indeed that can't
>Product Group Manager            think of at least two ways of spelling a
>Delphi Technical Support         word."
>Borland International, Inc.                  -- Andrew Jackson (1767-1845)
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Again, It's Michael Kersey,

The bear went over the mountain to see what he could see. And all that he could see, and all that he could see, was a pile of bullsh__. The "comparison" is a compendium of everything bad and possibly bad about PowerBuilder that the authors could find and everything good that could possibly be said about Delphi. The title says it's a comparison of PB 5.0 and Delphi, but the benchmark numbers are for PB 4.0.

The author makes such claims as:

1. PB 4.0 code is is slower and fatter than PB 3.0: >"When PowerBuilder released version 4.0, PowerBuilder developers reported that their >4.0 applications ran 20% to 70% slower than the same applications created with >PowerBuilder 3.0 on machines with 8M of RAM. This problem of decreased performance is >exacerbated by the fact that most Windows users will have more than one application >open at a time. Each one of these applications must compete for valuable memory leaving >less memory available for the data and code of the PowerBuilder application and further >degrading application performance. Developers also report that the size of the >PowerBuilder application file has increased from 20% to 70% when building their >applications under 4.0."
2. You'll be relieved to know that PowerBuilder has none of the following: >" > Not Object-Oriented > No Pointers > No Inheritance > No Exception Handling > No Run-Time Type Information > No Linked Lists > No Inline Assembler ( Undoubtedly a most-asked for feature!-MDK ) > No Set Handling and Enumerated Types > No Component Building "

I'm really glad to find all this out after 3 years of building applications with PB. I can finally throw away my application framework, since I have no inheritance! And I thought I was going crazy! - MDK

c) "PowerScript is a proprietary 4GL language that is difficult to learn." d) "PowerBuilder ships with a limited set of 22 controls covering only the most basic of design needs. In fact, a number of the controls such as Line, Oval, Rectangle and Round Rectangle are simply variations of a shape control and are useful for nothing more than form decoration. This effectively reduces the number of useful PowerBuilder controls to approximately fifteen."

e)"PowerBuilder developers cannot create reusable controls that integrate into the PowerBuilder development environment. The lack of full Object-Oriented support prevents effective component creation and forces the PowerBuilder developer to use other products such as C++ or Delphi to create specialized DLL's."

Hey guys, tell the Delphi's how we feel this pain every day, are always writing stuff in C++, C, or ( secretly ) Object Pascal! Why, I find myself stooping to assembler on an almost hourly basis while working in PowerBuilder! - MDK

f) My favorite: The article makes much ado about the Delphi "try" statement. Delphi has been desperately "trying" to sell Delphi with this cure-all for years now. Here's some code for you:

try

   To_write_a_system_with_delphi()
except

   on Exception do
     re_write_it_in_PowerBuilder()
   else
     Get_job_as_waiter()
end

OK! That's all! I give up! It's really worth looking at mostly for laughs. For someone to compile such a list really signals a desperate effort, I'm afraid. I don't know why Borland would stoop so low. They must be in real trouble or have a very loose cannon onboard their ship.

I must admit that I have attended Delphi user group meetings ( incognito, of course, usually disguised as Phillippe Kahn - that way no one talks to me ) and seminars for some years now. I always come away disappointed that the people attending are older than me ( by about 10 years ), and I am no spring chicken! Every time someone asks a question, someone else asks them to repeat it after they turn up their hearing aid. But they're nice guys: they always have an ambulance waiting outside, in case someone gets too excited about the next release.

All kidding aside, Folks, Delphi is probably an OK environment, but it's no PB killer!

Good Luck, Delphi's and PowerBuilders both, Michael D. Kersey Received on Sat Jul 06 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST