VOPS
in [Visual Objects]
|
From: Geoff Schaller on 21 Nov 2005 16:10 Don, The significant issues with the Image Editor are in fact not that complex and Robert has indicated as much in the past. So yes, I would expect that most VO'ers would expect such things to at least be given basic working functionality so that we don't have to constantly resort to third party tools. As always its budgets and priorities and GrafX is making it clear the kinds of priorities it is attaching to VO32. Geoff "Don Caton" <dcaton(a)shorelinesoftware.com> wrote in message news:xbudnWF6-qUnWxzenZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d(a)comcast.com: > "TSDing" <dingts(a)pc.jaring.my> wrote in message > news:4381ba98_1(a)news.tm.net.my: > > > > That is why I prefer to develop VO32. It will still run on a machine that > > has .NET on it. Only problem > > is Grafx is not doing much to improve the product. Ever since Grafx took > > over, have you notice any > > improvement on the Image Editor, Install Maker and Report Writter ? in fact > > they have gone worse. > > > Be realistic. Do you really want Grafx to spend time and money working > on the image editor? Yes, it's awful and it always has been. But every > company has limited resources, as you are well aware of. > > The install maker is based on ancient CA technology. Likewise, the > report writer is also based on an ancient CA product called CA-Ret. > Both were pretty bad to start out with, and I don't believe Grafx even > has the code to either of these things. > > Better solutions are on the VO CD, so what's the problem? You could put > full time developers on things like report writers and installers, but > why reinvent the wheel when there are other people out there focusing > their energies on those things? > > -- > Don
From: Phil McGuinness on 21 Nov 2005 16:56 Ginny THis is a great product and we are using this for our C# application http://www.xenocode.com Phil McGuinness - Sherlock Software ---- "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message news:3udtegF107avkU1(a)individual.net... > If you actually use that tool against some MSIL you will see what it does. > If debug symbols are available to the Reflector, the translation is > surprisingly good. But without the .pdb file, the code isn't as useful to > someone else. There are obfuscators on the market that you can purchase that > will make the reflected version even less useful.
From: Ginny Caughey on 21 Nov 2005 17:10 Hi Phil, I've heard good things about this product too. Thanks for the recommendation. -- Ginny "Phil McGuinness" <heyphil(a)sherlock.com.au> wrote in message news:438242a5$1(a)news.comindico.com.au... > Ginny > > THis is a great product and we are using this for our C# application > > http://www.xenocode.com > > Phil McGuinness - Sherlock Software > ---- > > "Ginny Caughey" <ginny.caughey.online(a)wasteworks.com> wrote in message > news:3udtegF107avkU1(a)individual.net... >> If you actually use that tool against some MSIL you will see what it >> does. >> If debug symbols are available to the Reflector, the translation is >> surprisingly good. But without the .pdb file, the code isn't as useful to >> someone else. There are obfuscators on the market that you can purchase > that >> will make the reflected version even less useful. > >
From: Don Caton on 21 Nov 2005 17:35 "TSDing" <dingts(a)pc.jaring.my> wrote in message news:4381ffef_2(a)news.tm.net.my: > Yes, Grafx should improve not only those but on every expect of VO32. Thats > what we expect when Grafx took over VO from CA. That is why most of use give > Grafx our full support. It is Grafx that dissapoints us and lost our > confidence. What you expect does not necessarily have any bearing on reality. And I don't mean that to be flippant or arrogant, but sometimes what we expect simply can't be delivered. I could expect the US government to fix every road and bridge in this country and keep them all in top condition at all times. Seems a fairly reasonable expectation, but in reality it is beyond the ability of the government to pay for that. The point being that every company has limitations. You may be unaware of those limitations, but they exist nonetheless. Sometimes it helps to put yourself in the other person's (or company's) place and imagine what issues they face, what they're capable of doing, how they must prioritize things, and so on. Even Microsoft can't necessarily fix everything with their software, despite the hoards of cash they have and the hundreds of thousands of employees at their disposal. > I know you are working hard on Vulcan.NET, you probably thinking that > everyone will be happy to move from VO to Vulcan... but there are VO people > who does not want Vulcan and does not believe it is possible to compile VO32 > codes into a .NET. No, I don't think that at all. Some people will be happy to move from VO to Vulcan, other people won't be interested. You can't please everyone, you just have to try and do the best you can with the resources you have. Whether anyone believes that it is possible to compile VO code into .NET or not doesn't really matter. We believe we can do it. Maybe we'll succeed and maybe we'll fail but you don't get anywhere in life by listening to the naysayers. Are you aware that you can compile C++ code into .NET? VO is a far less complex language than C++, so it stands to reason that it is possible to compile VO code into .NET. There are .NET versions of Delphi, Cobol, Perl, Java and many others. What would exclude VO from that list? -- Don
From: jmespinosabaviera on 21 Nov 2005 17:46
Phil McGuinness ha escrito: > Ginny > > THis is a great product and we are using this for our C# application > > http://www.xenocode.com > > Phil McGuinness - Sherlock Software > ---- And searching google I have found another: Salamander. It would be interesting to find comparisons among these products. |