<?xml version="1.0"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<title>Comments for BDNradio: JBuilder public roadmap</title>
<link rel="alternate" type="text/plain" href="http://dn.codegear.com/article/33106" title="BDNradio: JBuilder public roadmap" />
<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://dn.codegear.com/article/33106/feed" title="Comments for BDNradio: JBuilder public roadmap" />
<id>http://dn.codegear.com/article/33106</id>
<updated>2008-12-01T19:46:04-08:00</updated>
<entry>
<title>BDNradio: JBuilder public roadmap</title>
<author>
<name>Jeroen T. Wenting</name>
<uri>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/userall?commentid=38526</uri>
</author>
<id>http://threads.codegear.com/threads/threads.exe/view?commentid=38526</id>
<updated>2005-07-01T05:26:59-07:00</updated>
<published>2005-07-01T05:26:59-07:00</published>
<summary>BDNradio: JBuilder public roadmap</summary>
<content>As I predicted with the original Eclipse announcement this is the end of JBuilder.The Peloton platform I predict will live for one, maybe 2 releases before it's decided that it cannot survive in competition with the free version as everything that JBuilder users want that Eclipse can support will by then have been backported into Eclipse and the rest of JBuilder is too expensive for Borland to completely reimplement on the Eclipse platform.I for one won't purchase any Eclipse based version and will soon start looking at competing products to replace my Borland lineup of products.I'm not about to purchase anything based on Eclipse, if that were what I was looking for I would have several options already which are a lot cheaper than is JBuilder yet are quite powerful.I use JBuilder for the editor and the project features, things that Eclipse cannot provide and that are too expensive to backport into Eclipse (and if they could would end up as part of the free product anyway so why purchase it?).</content>
</entry>
</feed>
