>On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 10:46:55PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>> Julian Fitzell wrote:
>>
>> > - It isn't made my Microsoft
>>
>> What has that got to do with it? Are you implying that anything coming
>hehe... I remember back in '96 (soon after I started at Microsoft), I made
>some post or another to comp.lang.python. Somebody railed on about my
>@microsoft.com address. Guido came down *real* hard on the person, noting
>that I had been making solid contributions to Python for over a year, and
>that nobody had a right to bust on me because of where I happened to work.
>
>
>But that said: Julian *does* have some good arguments for Borland (if you
>miss the single one that Branko extracted). But there are two points that
>I'd like to make about it:
>
>1) MSFT tools (VB in this case) are more common; therefore, a VB-based
> WinSVN has a larger potential audience.
True.
>2) Mark is probably more familiar with VB than Borland tools, so he chose
> the tool he'd be most productive with. This does not preclude a Borland
> afficionado from building their own version. I would even encourage it,
> and would even support adding it to the CVS repository alongside the VB
> and the GNOME versions.
Yes, I figured that... Again, I wasn't really suggesting that anyone who had chosen VB was really gonna make a change to Builder. I may consider doing something with Builder if it looks like there's any point. Obviously I'm not going to write another client just so it's in a different language...
Julian
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:17 2006