Re: Delphi 2.0 vs. Powerbuilder 5.0

From: Michael D. Kersey <mdkersey_at_hal-pc.org>
Date: 1996/07/14
Message-ID: <31E985F7.50A9_at_hal-pc.org>#1/1


Ed Diana wrote:
>
> Someone wrote:
> > I imagine that this thread will continue forever. If Delphi were wo much better then
> >powerBuilder would see
> > at the very least a slowing in their growth. But that is not the case. With the
> >release of version 5 PB has
> > experienced a surge of growth unlike any other that it has ever had.
>
> People *are* buying Delphi Client/Server, many of them would have bought
> PB instead. I'm sure if you'd ask your average Powersoft sales rep
> if they'd like to see Delphi disappear, they'd whole heartedly say 'Yes'.
>
> > Look at the rates for consultants in NYC. VB $50-80, Delphi (I only found two and no
> > rates quoted), PB
> > $95-130... (New York Times) Case Closed.
>
> How exactly the case gets closed when you compare a few high rate PB
> jobs to two Delphi jobs where no rate was listed evades me.
>
> I've done my own little survey, though. I've worked with PB for
> about 2 years, and Delphi since it came out. In that time, the Powerbuilder
> development environment has GPF'd over *700* times (yes, I keep track
> of each one). The Delphi environment has GPF'd *TWICE*. And, I might
> add, each of those times Delphi 'captured' the GPF and ignored it - preventing
> any loss of my work. IMHO, case closed. Of course, programmers
> are welcome to use whatever system they prefer (that's why there's
> chocolate and vanilla) - but I know my tool of choice.

Hi Ed,

Since you went to the trouble of capturing all those GPF's, I hereby challenge you you to publish the log you kept along with the notes of what you were doing when these GPF's occurred. You did keep it in machine-readable form, didn't you? We'll probably be able to tell by your log if this claim has any veracity.

To get to the point, I'm tired of hearing people who are not familiar with PB complain about "multiple GPF's with PowerBuilder". This is an old fisherman's/fishwive's rumour that began years ago. If a PB programmer takes care to regenerate objects at the appropriate time, carefully implements any Window API calls, regularly checks his system for viruses and doesn't disable the compiler warning in his/her new software development, then GPF's are nonexistent in the PB environment. It should be the same in almost any non-beta development environment, provided the programmer knows what (s)he is doing and doesn't try to simply "wing it".

DOS and Windows are essentially unprotected operating systems. So is Windows 95. They aren't like UNIX. Wake up and accept the fact. We'll be saddled with these environments for at least three more years.

BTW, this thread started with a comparison of PB and Delphi located at the Borland home site. I don't know why Borland allows an employee to take cheap shots at PowerBuilder from that site. In the past, Borland marketing has always emphasized excellence in language design and the craftsmanship of their tools. They have always had excellent Pascal-based systems and their marketing took the high road, presenting those tools as such. Of course, everybody appreciates a good laugh every now and then, and such laughs display to us that this is lively competition and not total warfare. But I think that what I've read at their site ( the comparison of Delphi 2.0 and PowerBuilder 5.0, but with PB 4.0 benchmark numbers )is below their best effort.

Michael D. Kersey Received on Sun Jul 14 1996 - 00:00:00 CEST

Original text of this message