Yes: I've really enjoyed using Turbo Pascal in eighties and earned for living developing using Borland products in the early nineties. I've received VA for C++ to evaluate its suitability. After I've installed it it crashed almost on every click, before I was able to even try something usable. Before it would crash, it would be also quite slow to do anything. In short, not comparable at all with the Borland feel I was spoiled with (remember, the OP here is about Delphi). I don't remember if I've tried it before or after the first (16-bit) Delphi. But I know that I was absolutely amazed with Delphi, and quite puzzled with VA C++ (not understanding how they approved the production of the CDs of something in that state). I understood that IBM favored OS/2 and I've tried it on the NT of that time, so, apart for the clumsiness of the interface (which simply didn't fit much with what I've expected an IDE should let me do easily) I've also assumed that they probably tested it only on OS/2 and have made the NT version just to say it exists.
So I can't say it appeared better than Rational Rose which was also horrible, as far as I remember, more stable (as in not crashing that much), but again in my opinion unusable except for wasting time.
The system on which I've tested was otherwise stable, the applications I've user regularly and the builds that lasted hours haven't crashed.
Ah, Ok. I have been wrong to mention the VA suite of products in my original comment. I have only used VAJ and VAS then. They were (IMO) truly great. VA C++ sounds horrible. Perhaps the other products in the VA suite sucks :)
I used Delphi too, it was great. The VCL and the community/market around it was wonderful. I looked into BCB for a bit, but unfortunately never got to using it in anger..
From your description I would assume you got to use the version where IBM tried to create a Smalltalk/Lisp Machine experience for C++, similar to Lucid's Energize C++, which was so resource demanding that IBM gave up on it.
Nowadays we have Apple and Microsoft returning to the idea of using databases to model C++ on the IDEs.
"Let’s not beat around the bush: VisualAge for C++ for Windows is a disaster as far as I am concerned. It is by far the most anti-productive environment I ever came across, C++ compilers or otherwise."
"The wizard-like approach for project configuration takes you through a number of tabbed dialog pages à la OS/2 (with spiral binders and all that), and they simply look gross on the Windows platforms. What’s worse, elementary options such as a Browse button to navigate to a project directory are missing."
"A static library is not among the options as I found during one of my tests, but for the ones that are, you sometimes wish you’d never started in the first place."
Etc. I also remember it looked visually weird. And that it didn't do what I expected an IDE to do. He describes that and also some strange manual steps.
"Installing VAC4 can range from a trouble free walk in the park to something akin to being in the first wave landing on Omaha beach. I have installed the OS/2 and NT versions on multiple machines with varying, mostly good, results. However there are some really nasty horror stories in the news groups about installs going awry. In my experience installation problems seem to revolve around four issues:
VAC4 is very picky about hardware. It will complain or not run on a machine that is seemly running everything else just fine. I've run into this more with OS/2 than with Windows."
"Once you get VAC installed there is one fix pack for version 4 and two fix packs for version 3.6 that you need to install which take care of a number of bugs. The fix pack installation also uses Feature Install. Did I mention that Feature Install really stinks?"
As in, too advanced to implement the basic functionality before being that advanced. But I think there's enough evidence: only those who were physically forced to use it could have used it then. Which was my initial opinion.
P.S. Have you personally used VisualAge C++ in the nineties? Can you tell a bit about your use too? I see you're linking the other things that weren't and aren't that VisualAge C++ thing. Thanks.
Yes: I've really enjoyed using Turbo Pascal in eighties and earned for living developing using Borland products in the early nineties. I've received VA for C++ to evaluate its suitability. After I've installed it it crashed almost on every click, before I was able to even try something usable. Before it would crash, it would be also quite slow to do anything. In short, not comparable at all with the Borland feel I was spoiled with (remember, the OP here is about Delphi). I don't remember if I've tried it before or after the first (16-bit) Delphi. But I know that I was absolutely amazed with Delphi, and quite puzzled with VA C++ (not understanding how they approved the production of the CDs of something in that state). I understood that IBM favored OS/2 and I've tried it on the NT of that time, so, apart for the clumsiness of the interface (which simply didn't fit much with what I've expected an IDE should let me do easily) I've also assumed that they probably tested it only on OS/2 and have made the NT version just to say it exists.
So I can't say it appeared better than Rational Rose which was also horrible, as far as I remember, more stable (as in not crashing that much), but again in my opinion unusable except for wasting time.
The system on which I've tested was otherwise stable, the applications I've user regularly and the builds that lasted hours haven't crashed.