The new Product Manager and a native 64-bit compiler

[Dennis Landi]

When I heard that Nick Hodges is the new Delphi Product Manager, one
main concern came immediately to mind. To say the least many of us
share Nick's passion for Delphi and we can all make common cause there,
but... I have a question.

It is my distinct impression based on many flame wars in this news group
that Nick Hodges, the new Product Manager, is to say the least *not* a
proponent for a 64-bit native Delphi Compiler. I think a lot of people
are thinking the same thing as I am, so I'll just take it upon myself to
bring up the issue.

Instead of dredging up the past and pointing to myriad google hits on
Nick's past remarks on the subject, I'd like to simply ask the question
of what DevCo's current stance is regarding the native 64-bit question.

I would think the Delphi Product Manager would have a great deal of
influence on this issue. It would be great if this was one of the first
topics addressed in Nick's new Borland/DevCo blog.

I am not interested in a Flame War. I simply would like a clear,
definitive statement from DevCo regarding the "Native 64-bit" question.

I have a related question: Is there a anyone in Borland/DevCo that is
actually championing a 64-bit Native Delphi Compiler? I, personally,
can't think of a single individual within Borland/DevCo. Is there one?

Under the circumstances, I think its time to re-open the subject (even
if briefly to allay my/our fears).

If there is no support for the 64-bit Compiler within DevCo, please tell
us now. If there is active resistance within DevCo for the same, please
tell us now. If we have a Delphi Product Manager fighting *against* a
native 64-bit compiler, then, speaking for myself, its time to leave
for good.

Please note, I really would like a response from Borland/DevCo as
opposed to TeamB.

Thank you for your time.

-d

guid: 8F91F1E5-06AB-45B4-8308-161D5633F310

[Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]]

I think this has been answered definitively in the past. It's even marked
on the Delphi roadmap, so it's pretty obvious that DevCo intend to create
one.

[Dennis Landi]

Road maps can change. A new Delphi Product Manager who takes a negative
stance towards a particular initiative/plan can kill or delay that
initiative indefinitely. I really would like a response from DevCo. It
would be really great if Nick could address this topic in his new DevCo
Blog. The 64-bit Lobby are now Nick's constituents (and customers), too.

-d

[Rod]

Borland/DevCo put their stuff years into the .net2 theme. I fear, they
are not interested very much in native win64 compiler. I am interested
in native software development. I am not interested in virtual machines
like .net or java. So DevCo can expect money from me in 2008/9...

[Brian Moelk]

Dennis Landi wrote:
> It is my distinct impression based on many flame wars in this news group
> that Nick Hodges, the new Product Manager, is to say the least *not* a
> proponent for a 64-bit native Delphi Compiler. I think a lot of people
> are thinking the same thing as I am, so I'll just take it upon myself to
> bring up the issue.

I don't recall the specific threads, as a general rule, I try to stay
clear of flame wars, at least the ones I'm not involved in ;) But I
can't imagine that Nick was flat out against a 64-bit compiler, but
rather that it didn't make *business* sense at the time.

Overall I think Nick is a reasonable guy and open minded. While I may
not agree with him on everything, I do feel that he honestly considers
all sides of an argument. This is all I would ask from anyone.

> Instead of dredging up the past and pointing to myriad google hits on
> Nick's past remarks on the subject, I'd like to simply ask the question
> of what DevCo's current stance is regarding the native 64-bit question.

Currently, the RoadMap is the best answer.

> I am not interested in a Flame War.

Good...stop stirring the pot. ;)

> I simply would like a clear,
> definitive statement from DevCo regarding the "Native 64-bit" question.

If you don't consider the RoadMap "definitive", I'm not sure anything
else would be "definitive". ;) Certainly not a Newsgroup posting...

> I have a related question: Is there a anyone in Borland/DevCo that is
> actually championing a 64-bit Native Delphi Compiler? I, personally,
> can't think of a single individual within Borland/DevCo. Is there one?

I think it's likely that there are considering that it is on the RoadMap.

> Under the circumstances, I think its time to re-open the subject (even
> if briefly to allay my/our fears).

I don't. I think it's a settled issue unless it comes off the RoadMap. ;)

--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
bmo...@NObrainSPAMendeavorFOR.MEcom

[Uffe Kousgaard]

"Dennis Landi" <den...@dennislandi.com> wrote in message
news:449164f8$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...

>
> Instead of dredging up the past and pointing to myriad google hits on
> Nick's past remarks on the subject, I'd like to simply ask the question of
> what DevCo's current stance is regarding the native 64-bit question.

The roadmap is only a couple of weeks old. What do you expect for an answer
except a reference to the roadmap?

It's in their, but until we see a (public) beta or some other hard evidence,
it can be removed again.

Regards
Uffe

[Brian Moelk]

Dennis Landi wrote:
> Road maps can change.

Certainly, but I presume the one showed on the RoadShow is current.
This means Win64 native is still on the RoadMap.

Unless it comes *off* the RoadMap, IMO, there is no reason to worry that
their Win64 plans have changed.

> A new Delphi Product Manager who takes a negative
> stance towards a particular initiative/plan can kill or delay that
> initiative indefinitely.

I don't think Nick is going to delay or kill anything in his first week. ;)

> I really would like a response from DevCo. It
> would be really great if Nick could address this topic in his new DevCo
> Blog. The 64-bit Lobby are now Nick's constituents (and customers), too.

Patience Dennis...Nick only *started* yesterday.

[Walter Matte]

Nick says....

http://www.lemanix.com/nickblog/default,date,2006-06-14.aspx

"Dennis Landi" <den...@dennislandi.com> wrote in message
news:449164f8$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...

[Dennis Landi]

> Dennis Landi wrote:
>
> I don't think Nick is going to delay or kill anything in his first week. ;)
>
>

And agenda is an agenda. I'd like to hear from Nick directly on his
views concerning a 64-bit Native Compiler. In his view, is a 64-bit
native compiler in a 2008 time-frame (as it states on the RoadMap) a
plan he supports 100%? I'd like him to address that.

Brian, although I value your opinion highly, its not your opinion I'm
asking for just at the moment...

>>I really would like a response from DevCo. It
>>would be really great if Nick could address this topic in his new DevCo
>>Blog. The 64-bit Lobby are now Nick's constituents (and customers), too.
>
>
> Patience Dennis...Nick only *started* yesterday.
>

I would like to hear from Nick on this issue directly. He doesn't have
to do it here. A blog posting would work just as well.

-d

[Dennis Landi]

Walter Matte wrote:
> Nick says....
>
> http://www.lemanix.com/nickblog/default,date,2006-06-14.aspx
>
>

Which sounds pretty good actually. Hopefully we and Nick can address
this issue as openly, honestly and as civilly as possible. For my part,
I'll do my best to make it so.

-d

[ckd]

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:46:24 -0400, Dennis Landi
<den...@dennislandi.com> wrote:

>
>If there is no support for the 64-bit Compiler within DevCo, please tell
>us now. If there is active resistance within DevCo for the same, please
>tell us now. If we have a Delphi Product Manager fighting *against* a
>native 64-bit compiler, then, speaking for myself, its time to leave
>for good.
>

Dennis, this post amounts to nothing more than a troll (and I happen
to be a major, albeit a more quiet, 64bit proponent). Why?

- you *know* no DevCo employee is going to 'tell us now' that there is
active resistance to the technology.

- you *know* Nick isn't going to pop on here and write that he's
putting 64bit tech on the back burner.

- you *know* that any answer is going to consist of the same stuff
that we've been hearing for eternity.

- you *know* that whatever anyone says now it doesn't mean squat.

In summary, what you're asking for is ridiculous and even if you got
it it would have zero value. Hence, trolling - for what purpose I
don't know.

All we can do is think about why we want 64bit tech and investigate
tools that will work for the purpose. Becoming proficient at C++ or
whatever will only provide long term benefit anyway. At the point
when you have to have the 64bit technology, get it from whoever has it
at that time.

Hanging on to the Delphi dream is clouding your ability to think
pragmatically and clearly. FWIW, I could use a support group to help
those pining for nimble ide's that produce fast, compiled code too :)

-ckd

[David Farrell-Garcia]

Dennis Landi wrote:
> Road maps can change. A new Delphi Product Manager who takes a
> negative stance towards a particular initiative/plan can kill or
> delay that initiative indefinitely.

I disagree that Nick has taken a negative stance on the 64bit issue. I
think we all agree that 64 bit is the furture. What we may disagre
with is how important it is today for the typical Delphi developer
compared to other priorities.

[Brian Moelk]

> And agenda is an agenda. I'd like to hear from Nick directly on his
> views concerning a 64-bit Native Compiler.

Then send him a private email; ask him if Win64 is still part of the
future plans.

> Brian, although I value your opinion highly,

Likewise.

> its not your opinion I'm
> asking for just at the moment...

Sure, but if you don't want the all the crazies opinions, then why post
it to the NG's at all? ;)

> I would like to hear from Nick on this issue directly. He doesn't have
> to do it here. A blog posting would work just as well.

Then why not ask directly?

[Tom Corey]

Dennis Landi wrote:

>> I think this has been answered definitively in the past.
>> It's even marked on the Delphi roadmap

> Road maps can change.

And so can any answer that you get today. I have to agree with ckd.
This may not be an intentional troll, but the effect seems much the
same.

[Captain Jake]

"Brian Moelk" <bmo...@NObrainSPAMendeavorFOR.MEcom> wrote in message
news:44916c52$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...

> I don't recall the specific threads, as a general rule, I try to stay
> clear of flame wars, at least the ones I'm not involved in ;) But I
> can't imagine that Nick was flat out against a 64-bit compiler, but
> rather that it didn't make *business* sense at the time.

It seems to me that while it might make long term business sense, in the
short term there are other things that might be better to pursue, like
improved support for multi-threaded application building. 64 bit would most
likely be most desired on the server side, where most distributed apps are
doing their heavy lifting these days, but it is on that server side that
.NET makes the most sense because you have minimal deployment issues on
servers. Well, 64-bit .NET doesn't require any heavy effort from DevCo,
AFAIK. A native 64-bit compiler would.

Also, we must consider the scarcity of good compiler-oriented talent. It is
probably rather difficult to get good compiler guys/gals at any salary.
Maybe it will take a while for DevCo to build the right team for a native
64-bit compiler/linker to become a reality.

I'd love to see the VCL go cross-platform and adapted to modern chip
architectures, including 64-bit ones. But I also realize that the resources
for such a thing would be quite prodigious, and therefore a priority list
must triage the candidates. If DevCo does indeed decide to pursue .NET as
heavily as in the past, it will have to work like hell not to fall too far
behind MSFT. Even now, a lot of Delphians are programming in Visual C#
simply because it offers them .NET 2.0 compatibility and a likely rapid
upgrade to 3.0 in time, and Delphi does not.

I also know of real-world examples of people NOT using D2006 for new
development because of out-of-the-box problems and bugs in the IDE. There
are a significant number of people who aren't going to use a dev tool is if
they have to hunt down and apply twnety-zillion upgrades, hot fixes and
third-party unofficial patches. Perceived quality is very important, and
Delphi hasn't been stellar in this regard in recent years. I do know that
Nick is aware of this fact, as he himself has made quite a few statements on
this topic.

So, it seems to me that there are a few items that are probably above native
64-bit support in the todo list for Delphi. You can't always get what you
want, but you just might find, you can sometimes get what you need.

[Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]]

> Road maps can change.

But blogs can change much more easily :-)

[Dennis Landi]

ckd wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 09:46:24 -0400, Dennis Landi
> <den...@dennislandi.com> wrote:
>
>
>>If there is no support for the 64-bit Compiler within DevCo, please tell
>>us now. If there is active resistance within DevCo for the same, please
>>tell us now. If we have a Delphi Product Manager fighting *against* a
>>native 64-bit compiler, then, speaking for myself, its time to leave
>>for good.
>>
>
>
> Dennis, this post amounts to nothing more than a troll (and I happen
> to be a major, albeit a more quiet, 64bit proponent). Why?
>

You are of course entitled to your opinion. But I am raising this issue
again because I am worried. The 64-bit issue is the single greatest
issue concerning Delphi *for* *me*. Because this is the case, I am
bringing it up for discussion. (This is a how a LOBBY works...)

The 2008 timeframe for a 64-bit native compiler is the longest I am
willing to wait. If I hear that this plan is killed or delayed any more
than 2008, then I will make plans to move on and begin communicating to
my customers and colleagues to do the same.

*I* am worried that Nick Hodges as Product Manager will negatively
affect the plan for a native 64-bit Delphi Compiler.

I am asking him directly to address this issue; and, hopefully allay my
fears.

I am sorry if you find that unreasonable. So be it.

Thanks.

Dennis Landi

[Dennis Landi]

Brian Moelk wrote:
>>And agenda is an agenda. I'd like to hear from Nick directly on his
>>views concerning a 64-bit Native Compiler.
>
>
> Then send him a private email; ask him if Win64 is still part of the
> future plans.
>
>
>>Brian, although I value your opinion highly,
>
>
> Likewise.
>
>
>>its not your opinion I'm
>>asking for just at the moment...
>
>
> Sure, but if you don't want the all the crazies opinions, then why post
> it to the NG's at all? ;)
>
>
>>I would like to hear from Nick on this issue directly. He doesn't have
>>to do it here. A blog posting would work just as well.
>
>
> Then why not ask directly?
>

I just did. You seem to have a problem with me asking the question
publicly. I don't see why that is a problem, since the issue affect
thousands of developers, not just me. I expect a public answer not a
private answer. The two modes, private and public, shouldn't affect the
answer to the question.

-d

[Dennis Landi]

And another way to kill the 64-bit initiative is to make it a low enough
priority...

-d

[ckd]

I don't believe any 'forward looking' statement from *anyone* will
allay your fears. You can take that as a compliment.

-ckd

ps: A fearful thought that could be the basis or a geeky horror
flick... a cubicle farm of evil carnies all typing away at bds.net ;)

[Mike Orriss]

Dennis Landi wrote:

> I just did. You seem to have a problem with me asking the question
> publicly. I don't see why that is a problem, since the issue affect
> thousands of developers, not just me. I expect a public answer not a
> private answer. The two modes, private and public, shouldn't affect
> the answer to the question.

Why should the question have to be answered right now?

IMO, you shout too loudly, too often and now too soon about this topic.
You are actually being counter-productive.

Nick needs to get his feet under the table and get fully acquainted
with the big picture before starting to consider such details.

--
Mike Orriss

[Dennis Landi]

I am sorry, but I disagree with you. IMO, Nick is as well-acquainted
with the big picture concerning Delphi as anyone (a great thing, and
probably unprecendented in that position). However, his views on
priorities on what is to be done (in order of priority) will impact the
Delphi Dev Community with every Product Management meeting his attends.

So it may be time for our voices to be heard again.

Here's mine...

-d

[Brian Moelk]

> I just did. You seem to have a problem with me asking the question
> publicly.

I don't have a "problem" with it, I just think it's a backassward way of
going about it. If I want to get an answer to my question, I'm going to
ask the person/group/entity directly. It's just more effective.

> I don't see why that is a problem, since the issue affect
> thousands of developers, not just me. I expect a public answer not a
> private answer.

There's nothing stopping you from getting a private answer, asking for
permission to make it public and then doing so.

I tend to agree with Mike on this...you can't avoid the history wrapped
up in the issue. This includes not only Nick's but yours.

Besides, the current RoadMap clearly indicates that 64-bit is part of
the plan.

> The two modes, private and public, shouldn't affect the
> answer to the question.

I disagree with that. In my experience, I get very different answers in
public than I do in private.

[Brian Moelk]

> I am sorry, but I disagree with you.

I agree with Mike on this one.

> IMO, Nick is as well-acquainted
> with the big picture concerning Delphi as anyone (a great thing, and
> probably unprecendented in that position). However, his views on
> priorities on what is to be done (in order of priority) will impact the
> Delphi Dev Community with every Product Management meeting his attends.

Sure I suspect that Nick will have some influence, but I doubt that Nick
is going to completely rework the RoadMap on his second day of
employment. You can't honestly think that Dennis.

> So it may be time for our voices to be heard again.

No, I don't think it's the right time. Wait until you see the compiler
slip in the schedule or come off the Roadmap, then let your voice be
heard...again.

[Dennis Landi]

Brian Moelk wrote:

> No, I don't think it's the right time. Wait until you see the compiler
> slip in the schedule or come off the Roadmap, then let your voice be
> heard...again.
>

Nope, by that time, way too much time will have passed, and way too much
time will have been wasted. I will drop all future plans involving Delphi.

One thing is for sure, if the 2008 delivery date for a native 64-bit
compiler should slip at all, I feel sure that Nick will do his best to
communicate that truth to the customer base so that we can make plans
accordingly.

When it comes to Delphi and the Delphi Community, I don't doubt Nick's
integrity at all... However, I am very doubtful Nick's list of
priorities have the 64-bit native compiler anywhere near the top of the
list, and this is precisely what I want to clarify.

-d

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Dennis Landi wrote:

> It is my distinct impression based on many flame wars in this news
> group that Nick Hodges, the new Product Manager, is to say the least

> not a proponent for a 64-bit native Delphi Compiler.

I think this is not true, and I should know, since I am me. ;-)

--
Nick Hodges
Delphi Product Manager - DevCo
Read my Blog -- http://www.lemanix.com/nickblog

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Dennis Landi wrote:

> I would like to hear from Nick on this issue directly.

I am a strong poponent of native code development. Always have been.

I'm also a strong proponent of DevCo making tons of money.

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Brian Moelk wrote:

> Sure I suspect that Nick will have some influence, but I doubt that
> Nick is going to completely rework the RoadMap on his second day of
> employment.

I will say this -- it is early in my tenure here (to say the least :-)
and I am still learning exactly what my job is, but I do know this:
I'm in charge of managing and maintaining the roadmap.

[Lee_Nover]

> I think this is not true, and I should know, since I am me. ;-)

LOL! :D

[Dennis Landi]

Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:
> Dennis Landi wrote:
>
>
>>It is my distinct impression based on many flame wars in this news
>>group that Nick Hodges, the new Product Manager, is to say the least
>>not a proponent for a 64-bit native Delphi Compiler.
>
>
> I think this is not true, and I should know, since I am me. ;-)
>

That is excellent news Nick. As I said I have gotten a distinctly
different impression from you previous activity on the topic in this
news group.

It would be great if you could expand on your response in your new DevCo
blog.

All the best and congrats on the new position.

By the way, I *did* send you an email. Not sure if you got it.... It
would be great if you would respond, as there are some other topics (not
nearly as contentious) that I'd like to discuss (briefly) with you.

I take it your email address follows the convention firstname dot
lastname at borland dot com?

-d

[ckd]

On 15 Jun 2006 09:32:14 -0700, "Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)"
<nickh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dennis Landi wrote:
>
>> It is my distinct impression based on many flame wars in this news
>> group that Nick Hodges, the new Product Manager, is to say the least
>> not a proponent for a 64-bit native Delphi Compiler.
>
>I think this is not true, and I should know, since I am me. ;-)
>

Wow! This is like a positive disturbance in the Force. You can just
FEEL the fears evaporating. Thanks, Nick!

btw, congratulations and good luck :)

-ckd

[Dennis Landi]

> That /will/ be my address, but it isn't set up yet.
>

Oh sorry, *my* email address is dennis at dennislandi dot com.

(I also tried calling you, btw, but you don't apparently have a phone yet).

Please email me.

-d

[Wayne Niddery [TeamB]]

Brian Moelk wrote:
>
> backassward

Shouldn't that be "bassackward"? <g>

--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"Nature abhors the vacuum tube." - J.R. Pierce, Bell Labs engineer who
coined the term 'transistor'

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Dennis Landi wrote:

>
> I take it your email address follows the convention firstname dot
> lastname at borland dot com?

That /will/ be my address, but it isn't set up yet.

--

[Wayne Niddery [TeamB]]

Dennis Landi wrote:
>
> IMO, Nick is as well-acquainted
> with the big picture concerning Delphi as anyone

... can be who, up til now, was not an employee of Borland.

> However, his views on
> priorities on what is to be done (in order of priority) will impact
> the Delphi Dev Community with every Product Management meeting his
> attends.

Absolutely, but as he gets up to speed - well acquainted - with issues he
can only learn as an employee, his own views on various issues may change
too. His goal, his *passion*, and a very key reason he would've been offered
the position, is to further Delphi - to do what's right for it as a product
*in the market*, in order to make it and DevCo a bigger success in future.

So unless you think Nick is so shallow and immature as to trash planned
features due to purely (your perceived but not necessarily, or even likely,
correct) personal reasons, apart from what would be right for the product
and the company as a whole, then your concern is very badly misplaced.

If 64 bit native were to come off the roadmap, it would not be for the
*wrong* reasons as you are clearly implying. By its presence on the roadmap,
Borland has already indicated that it considers it important enough to be
there - i.e. that it will help sell product sufficiently in excess of the
cost of the development. Unless that expectation changes based on market
research, there is no reason so suspect it will be removed.

--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God and there is not a force of law and public
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." - John Adams

[jeffc]

So 64-bit native is solidly on the RoadMap, but I think a bigger part of
the problem is that Borland is moving away from native code to VM based .NET

For example, you want ECO then you need to be on .NET. If you want full
object serialization, then move to .NET since its already there. You want
generics in Delphi Win32, fraid not thats already in .NET

You can read more on my opinions on this here:
http://groups.google.com/group/borland.public.delphi.non-technical/browse_thread/thread/b0c9ca6231ee0e13/4b27ec1b8e8d46d5

The significant problem here is that almost every developer I talk to,
including longtime Delphi advocates, are not that interested in .NET.
What they want right now is new innovative features in the native Win32
product. However, this is not in Borlands ultimate plan. This is a big
disconnect with a majority of their fan base. Many say if they need to
focus or are forced to .NET then they are simply going to move to C# and
VS IDE. Personally, I would still stick with Borlands product since I
think they will simplify Winforms thru VCL.NET like they did with MFC.
But thats my opinion and many see it differently. But I have not looked
that closely at VS/C# vs BDS/Delphi, so my opinion might just change as well.

>> "You can't always get what you want, but you just might find, you can
sometimes get what you need."

In this case I am not sure Borlands current base of Delphi developers are
going to get what they need either. Not from what I am hearing current
developers say they need.

Alot of what I am hearing is that many developers have impressed clients
with the speed and responsiveness of their apps vs what they were used to.
Many of which were based on MS VB technology and slow. So these same
developers state, why should they rewrite their app in an MS .NET
technology that is going to run slower than the native EXE app they offer
their clients today.

I think many of us realize that the past Delphi team could not expand the
native code VCL framework to equal that of .NET because of the lack of
resources and ALM drain that occured over at Borland. So the next best
strategic move was to jump on the .NET bandwagon. Unfortunately, Borland
used to be able to significantly differentiate themselves from MS. I
don't think this argument is as strong as it is today as it was in the past.

Many of us were won over with Delphi's native compiler and the speed and
UI responsiveness it offered versus the VB and DLL hell solutions.
However, the move to .NET seems to be taking a few steps back from these
overall advantages.

Of course the past is the past and maybe the best strategic move forward
for Delphi is .NET considering the resources they have today and how big
of a moving force it is.

But if you share the same needs as many developers and want the native
compiler to play a bigger role in Delphi's Roadmap, then I suggest you let
Nick and devco.su...@borland.com hear your voice.

But I can only hope for a future Delphi product that really blows away
C#/VS with new innovative features like:
- multi-threaded, multi-core performance automatically built in
- platform agnostic from a single base of code (Mac, Linux, Compact)
- faster speed than MS products (maybe an optimized .NET VM that is tied
to Delphi language optimizations)

However, I would really like to see the VCL framework and Delphi language
expanded to give us the power and ease of .NET, but with native code. And
see new language features that C# has added to the native Delphi compiler
(i.e. generics). And could automatic memory management and garbage
collection be implemented in a native compiled EXE?

I think sticking with native code speed would really differentiate them
from MS products.

Of course these are my personal wants and probably foolish to even
entertain. But its fun to dream :)

BTW- Congratulations Nick!

--- posted by geoForum on http://delphi.newswhat.com

["Henrick Hellström [StreamSec]"]

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:
> If 64 bit native were to come off the roadmap, it would not be for the
> *wrong* reasons as you are clearly implying.

Well, that might not be entirely relevant. I need a dcc64, so if it were
to come off the road map I couldn't care less if it comes off for the
"right" reasons or for the "wrong" reasons.

(Strictly speaking, I would prefer if it were to come off for the wrong
reasons, because in such case there would be some hope someone would get
fired and the Delphi Win64 product become reinstated. <g>)

[Dennis Landi]

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:

> Dennis Landi wrote:
>
>> IMO, Nick is as well-acquainted
>> with the big picture concerning Delphi as anyone
>
>
>
> ... can be who, up til now, was not an employee of Borland.
>
>
>> However, his views on
>> priorities on what is to be done (in order of priority) will impact
>> the Delphi Dev Community with every Product Management meeting his
>> attends.
>
>

...

> So unless you think Nick is so shallow and immature as to trash
planned features due to purely (your perceived but not necessarily, or
even likely, correct) personal reasons, apart from what would be right
for the product and the company as a whole, then your concern is very
badly misplaced.
>

I will never understand this "attack dog" approach you have when dealing
with borland customers with whom you disagree with. Since we can't seem
to have a civil discussion, let's not, OK Wayne?

> If 64 bit native were to come off the roadmap,

I think Nick's influence on the Road Map will be felt. If the 64-bit
compiler is to come off the Road Map, I feel sure that Nick will
communicate that fact to us as quickly as possible to we can adjust our
own plans. I pretty sure Nick has called for this in his own blogs over
the last 2 years, I have no doubt he'll follow through on that now that
he is managing the Road Map.

Nevertheless, I would really like to see Nick Hodges address the 64-bit
issue head on, as one of his first blog postings as Delphi Product Manager.

-d

[Dennis Landi]

Henrick Hellström [StreamSec] wrote:
> Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:
>
>> If 64 bit native were to come off the roadmap, it would not be for the
>> *wrong* reasons as you are clearly implying.
>
>
> Well, that might not be entirely relevant. I need a dcc64, so if it were
> to come off the road map I couldn't care less if it comes off for the
> "right" reasons or for the "wrong" reasons.
>

Precisely. Its too late to debate this subject any longer.

DevCo, if the dcc64 is to be delayed passed 2008, please let us know as
soon as possible.

Thanks.

-d

[Allen Bauer]

> And agenda is an agenda. I'd like to hear from Nick directly on his views

> concerning a 64-bit Native Compiler. In his view, is a 64-bit native
> compiler in a 2008 time-frame (as it states on the RoadMap) a plan he
> supports 100%? I'd like him to address that.
>
> Brian, although I value your opinion highly, its not your opinion I'm

> asking for just at the moment...
>

>>>I really would like a response from DevCo. It
>>>would be really great if Nick could address this topic in his new DevCo
>>>Blog. The 64-bit Lobby are now Nick's constituents (and customers), too.
>>
>>
>> Patience Dennis...Nick only *started* yesterday.

>>
>
> I would like to hear from Nick on this issue directly. He doesn't have to
> do it here. A blog posting would work just as well.

While Nick will certainly carry a huge amount of influence, part of his job
description is to be a consensus builder, not a "bull in a china shop." So
he gets to weigh all sides and sources of ideas and priorities. He's also
now privy to a huge amount of information that will be used to determine
those priorities, of which these newsgroups are only one slice of
information. I can also say with certainty, that if I have any influence
(and I think I may have a little ;-), 64bit will remain on the roadmap for
'08 (forward looking statements, changing plans, yada yada yada.... and all
that mumbo-jumbo)...

Give Nick a few weeks to absorb both the new culture he's been tossed into
and to carefully evaluate the current roadmap and the implications thereof.
Right now Nick is going to remain focused on Highlander since that is the
closest target and needs to remain on track. Can't look *too* far ahead
because you'll miss that huge hole right in front of you...

--
Allen Bauer
DevCo Chief Scientist
Borland^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDevCo Software Corporation.
http://blogs.borland.com/abauer

[Dennis Landi]

Allen Bauer wrote:

> While Nick will certainly carry a huge amount of influence, part of his job
> description is to be a consensus builder, not a "bull in a china shop." So
> he gets to weigh all sides and sources of ideas and priorities. He's also
> now privy to a huge amount of information that will be used to determine
> those priorities, of which these newsgroups are only one slice of
> information. I can also say with certainty, that if I have any influence
> (and I think I may have a little ;-), 64bit will remain on the roadmap for
> '08 (forward looking statements, changing plans, yada yada yada.... and all
> that mumbo-jumbo)...
>
> Give Nick a few weeks to absorb both the new culture he's been tossed into
> and to carefully evaluate the current roadmap and the implications thereof.
> Right now Nick is going to remain focused on Highlander since that is the
> closest target and needs to remain on track. Can't look *too* far ahead
> because you'll miss that huge hole right in front of you...
>

Ok Allen. Thanks. If priorities change that should negatively affect a
2008 appearance of a native 64-bit compiler, please let us know as soon
as you can.

-d

[Dan Barclay]

"Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)" <nickh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:44918bf4$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...

>
> I'm also a strong proponent of DevCo making tons of money.

When you're within a few hundred miles of here, give me a shout. We can
draw pictures, wave arms, and strategize.

Dan

[Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]]

> I'm in charge of managing and maintaining the roadmap.

Cool, same old paypal address for accepting bribes? :-)

[Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]]

Hi Dennis

> *I* am worried that Nick Hodges as Product Manager will negatively affect
> the plan for a native 64-bit Delphi Compiler.

I think you seem worried that someone who disagrees with you is now in a
position where there opinion matters. The thing to keep in mind is that I
am sure you believe that Nick will do what is right to do, not what he wants
to do. He certainly wont drop native 64bit support just to finally finish
off a newsgroup argument :-)

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Dan Barclay wrote:

>
> When you're within a few hundred miles of here, give me a shout. We
> can draw pictures, wave arms, and strategize.

Will do.

[Dennis Landi]

Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software] wrote:
> Hi Dennis
>
>
>>*I* am worried that Nick Hodges as Product Manager will negatively affect
>>the plan for a native 64-bit Delphi Compiler.
>
>
> I think you seem worried that someone who disagrees with you is now in a
> position where there opinion matters.

That's one way of putting it. The disagreement is question is the
prioritization of a Native 64-bit Delphi Compiler... Lower its priority
enough, and it won't happen.

But, I've communicated my worry. Allen Bauer has adequately addressed
my concerns for now. We can move on. I am glad to hear that somebody
at Borland is protecting the interests of a native 64-bit Delphi
Compiler. There has got to be somebody at DevCo doing this, and I am
gald to hear that Allen is at least one of those people.

-d

[Jan Derk]

Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:

Congratulations with your new job.

> I am a strong poponent of native code development. Always have been.

Now that sounds good. I am looking forward to the native Unicode VCL :)

> I'm also a strong proponent of DevCo making tons of money.

Now this statement got me curious:

Do you mean that native code will make DevCo tons of money?

Or do you mean that aspects other than native code will make DevCo tons
of money?

Jan Derk

[Michael Swindell (Borland)]

DevCo's stance is that native development has been and will continue to be a
key part of Delphi going forward. Hardware moved to 64bit faster than
typical application requirements, but the app requirements are catching up.
When I say typical I don't mean to imply that there isn't any need today,
but out of a million developers, if only a thousand have the requirement, it
just can't be called typical just yet. 64bit native is and has been on our
roadmap and actually has quite a high priority (there are other items in our
list that aren't high enough to be on the current 3yr roadmap but will make
it as the roadmap rolls). Nick will assess the priority levels of many
different Delphi requirements including 64bit on an ongoing basis - weighing
them against each other, gathering customer input, time to market etc - and
adjusting the priorities as needed, if that changes the roadmap we'll update
the roadmaps periodically to reflect. At the end of the day it's a
combination of prioritization, demand, ability, and customer value.
Championing something has little to do with making it happen first or
shouting the loudest. It's about making the best justifications, decisions,
and prioritizations to get the right things done at the right times. I think
Nick's going to do very well and will be a great representative for Delphi
customers around the world. -michael

"Dennis Landi" <den...@dennislandi.com> wrote in message
news:449164f8$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> When I heard that Nick Hodges is the new Delphi Product Manager, one main
> concern came immediately to mind. To say the least many of us share
> Nick's passion for Delphi and we can all make common cause there, but...
> I have a question.

>
> It is my distinct impression based on many flame wars in this news group

> that Nick Hodges, the new Product Manager, is to say the least *not* a
> proponent for a 64-bit native Delphi Compiler. I think a lot of people
> are thinking the same thing as I am, so I'll just take it upon myself to
> bring up the issue.
>
> Instead of dredging up the past and pointing to myriad google hits on
> Nick's past remarks on the subject, I'd like to simply ask the question of
> what DevCo's current stance is regarding the native 64-bit question.
>
> I would think the Delphi Product Manager would have a great deal of
> influence on this issue. It would be great if this was one of the first
> topics addressed in Nick's new Borland/DevCo blog.
>
> I am not interested in a Flame War. I simply would like a clear,
> definitive statement from DevCo regarding the "Native 64-bit" question.
>
> I have a related question: Is there a anyone in Borland/DevCo that is
> actually championing a 64-bit Native Delphi Compiler? I, personally,
> can't think of a single individual within Borland/DevCo. Is there one?
>
> Under the circumstances, I think its time to re-open the subject (even if
> briefly to allay my/our fears).
>
> If there is no support for the 64-bit Compiler within DevCo, please tell
> us now. If there is active resistance within DevCo for the same, please
> tell us now. If we have a Delphi Product Manager fighting *against* a
> native 64-bit compiler, then, speaking for myself, its time to leave for
> good.
>
> Please note, I really would like a response from Borland/DevCo as opposed
> to TeamB.
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> -d
>
> guid: 8F91F1E5-06AB-45B4-8308-161D5633F310

[Dennis Landi]

Michael Swindell (Borland) wrote:
>... 64bit native is and has been on our

> roadmap and actually has quite a high priority

Michael,

That is very good to hear. This is the first time I've heard anyone
from Borland comment on the relative priority of native 64-bit.

Thanks for responding.

-d

[Brian Moelk]

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:
> Shouldn't that be "bassackward"? <g>

babproly.

--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
bmo...@NObrainSPAMendeavorFOR.MEcom

[ckd]

The rest of Michael's quote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2006 12:02:08 -0700, "Michael Swindell \(Borland\)"
<first...@borland.com> wrote:

> (there are other items in our
>list that aren't high enough to be on the current 3yr roadmap but will make
>it as the roadmap rolls).

The publication of the roadmap was itself Borland commentary on the
relative priority of D64 - in fact no different than what you just
heard other than it wasn't spelled out for you.

[Captain Jake]

"Dennis Landi" <den...@dennislandi.com> wrote in message

news:4491b23b$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...

> That is very good to hear. This is the first time I've heard anyone from
> Borland comment on the relative priority of native 64-bit.

Dennis, you need to remind yourself that the past was in control of the
Borland management team that in the end decided to divest themselves of the
IDE's. Don't hold on so tightly to any impressions you may have (rightfully)
built up during that time. All indications are that DevCo intends to pursue
a very different management philosophy and very different customer goals
going forward. The way I see it is that Borland was for managers, but DevCo
will be for developers.

Also, I think you worry way too much about Nick's loyalties. I think your
perceptions that he was against native 64-bit are based on a paraduigm that
has since shifted. Nick seems to have a trait that I've noticed is quite
pronounced in anyone that has been in the military voluntarily and that is a
strong sense of loyalty to one's team. While the old Borland management was
in control, they were the coaches of the team so to speak, and so Nick
obviously tried to play to the team's strengths and direction, which at that
time was toward ALM. 64-bit is not antithetical to that goal, but it is not
entirely relevant either. But the team has now been changed, and I suspect
Nick's current loyalties are true to this team's goals (or he wouldn't have
been asked to come on board in such a high profile way).

[Dennis Landi]

Hi Jake,

Ok, whatever. Me, I just call a spade a spade. I'm pretty consistent
that way, regardless of the "current regime".

In Nick's case (in the past), I just think we've had a genuine
disagreement on the priority of a 64-bit Delphi Compiler. Alan Bauer
has said that Nick now has "more information", so we'll see what happens
in the future...

-d

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Jan Derk wrote:

> Do you mean that native code will make DevCo tons of money?
>
> Or do you mean that aspects other than native code will make DevCo
> tons of money?

I don't mean anything other than what it says. ;-)

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Michael Swindell (Borland) wrote:

> I think Nick's going to do very well and will be a great
> representative for Delphi customers around the world.

Aw shucks.

[Jan Derk]

Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:

> > Do you mean that native code will make DevCo tons of money?
> >
> > Or do you mean that aspects other than native code will make DevCo
> > tons of money?

> I don't mean anything other than what it says. ;-)

Ah, I see. In the middle of typing the post the thought popped in your
head that you love DevCo to make a lot of money. It is totally
unrelated to the native code part. I bet you were counting that huge
stack of share options DevCo provided to you. ;)

Jan Derk

[Kristofer Skaug]

Jan Derk wrote:

> Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:
>> I'm also a strong proponent of DevCo making tons of money.

> <snip>

> Do you mean that native code will make DevCo tons of money?
> Or do you mean that aspects other than native code will make DevCo
> tons of money?

I'm fairly certain he said that DevCo's developments/priority for native
64-bit support will be driven by financial considerations (i.e. does it
promise to be profitable enough for them to be worth it, compared to other
strategic options).

--
Kristofer

[RandomAccess]

Lucky for him.

[Hannes Danzl[NDD]]

Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:

> Brian Moelk wrote:
>
> > Sure I suspect that Nick will have some influence, but I doubt that
> > Nick is going to completely rework the RoadMap on his second day of
> > employment.
>
> I will say this -- it is early in my tenure here (to say the least :-)
> and I am still learning exactly what my job is, but I do know this:

> I'm in charge of managing and maintaining the roadmap.

Good. Then we know who to keep to it ;)

Anyways, although I agree with Brian that it's too early to voice concerns, I
still want to make a clear point here: there are lots of low level products
written in Delphi out there (data analysis, CAD, Geo, database engines,
etc...) and for these we NEED a possibility to access the Win64 platform
natively. .NET only is NOT an option (at least not until a vastly performance
wise improved .NET 4 materializes from nowhere) to keep these products alive
after the next 1 or 2 years. Based on these products are loads of business
applications which will just as the base products fall behind the competition.
Please seriously consider a Win64 compiler a priority product/release.

--

Hannes Danzl [NexusDB Developer]
Newsgroup archive at http://www.tamaracka.com/search.htm

[Hannes Danzl[NDD]]

> If 64 bit native were to come off the roadmap, it would not be for the wrong

> reasons as you are clearly implying. By its presence on the roadmap, Borland

To make this very clear here. Should that come off or being pushed out that
will force us to move to another development platform for our database core
engine. There's NO WAY around native 64 bit support for us, be it for
addressing space or performance reasons.

[Hannes Danzl[NDD]]

Thanks for that very clear post, Mike.

[David Clegg]

Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:

> Aw shucks.

Don't be bashful, Nick. My first reaction when I heard the news of your
new role was "Excellent! Mr Delphi is going to be sitting in the Mr
Delphi chair".

I am honestly hard pressed to think of a more passionate and tireless
crusader for the Delphi cause, and that is *exactly* who us here in the
peanut gallery want to see occupying the Delphi Product Manager
position.

--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299

QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com

"Marge, it takes two people to lie. One to lie and one to listen." -
Homer Simpson

[David Farrell-Garcia]

Dennis Landi wrote:

>You seem to have a problem with me asking the question
> publicly.

Dennis, I don't know about him, but I don't have a problem with that.
It is just the over and over and over again thing that gets old. And
When you turn every thread into a 64 bit discussion it just makes me
cringe. Especially since it has already been answered. YOu know it is
on the official RoadMap. Beating it over the head almost daily is not
going to make it happen any sooner. I do have 64bit Vista on my laptop
and it has yet to butter my muffin. It is just too early for me to get
enthused by 64bit.

Why not jsut bring it up every 6 months or so, instead of every thread
or so? If it drops off the roadmap then raise hell.

[David Farrell-Garcia]

Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software] wrote:

> Cool, same old paypal address for accepting bribes? :-)

LOL!

[Dennis Landi]

David Farrell-Garcia wrote:

> Dennis Landi wrote:
>
Beating it over the head almost daily is not
> going to make it happen any sooner.

> Why not jsut bring it up every 6 months or so, instead of every thread

> or so? If it drops off the roadmap then raise hell.
>
>

That's just flat out false.

I have not brought up the 64-bit topic IN MONTHS and very rarely over
the last 1 year or so since the 64-bit compiler appeared on the Road
Map. Its easy enough to check. Just google my name and "64-bit" and
sort by date:

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=64-bit+author%3ADennis+author%3ALandi&start=0&scoring=d&num=10&hl=en&lr=&as_drrb=q&as_mind=1&as_minm=1&as_miny=1981&as_maxd=15&as_maxm=6&as_maxy=2006&safe=off&

http://tinyurl.com/mgeqj

Since Nick Hodges was one of the "64-bit Lobby's" most vocal opponents
for so long (also easily checked via google); I think a little reallity
check is warranted.

-d

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Dennis Landi wrote:

> Since Nick Hodges was one of the "64-bit Lobby's" most vocal
> opponents for so long (also easily checked via google);

Just to set the record straight, I was never an opponent of 64-bit
Delphi. I was, however, and always will be, a proponent of sound
business strategy.

[David Farrell-Garcia]

Dennis Landi wrote:

>
> That's just flat out false.

It is NOT "flat out false", just a mild exaggeration. :-)

[Michael C.]

Dennis Landi wrote:
>
> Since Nick Hodges was one of the "64-bit Lobby's" most vocal opponents
> for so long (also easily checked via google); I think a little reallity
> check is warranted.

I just want to say that some of us are very please you brought this up.
Why?
Some of us are betting that there will a 64bit native Delphi solution.
If we are wrong in our bets ... well ... we would like to be informed ASAP.

Michael

[Dennis Landi]

Michael C. wrote:
> Dennis Landi wrote:
>
>>
>> Since Nick Hodges was one of the "64-bit Lobby's" most vocal opponents
>> for so long (also easily checked via google); I think a little
>> reallity check is warranted.
>
>
> I just want to say that some of us are very please you brought this up.

Believe me, I know perfectly well that is the case...

-d

[David Clegg]

David Farrell-Garcia wrote:

> just a mild exaggeration. :-)

In non-tech? Dude, you should be banished for life :-)

--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
http://cc.borland.com/Author.aspx?ID=72299

QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com

"Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us
from the animals. Except the weasel." - Homer Simpson

[Nils Boedeker]

Hi,

I only want to point out that native 64 bit development (with visual
development by 64bit vcl) ist an (killer)-argument for BDS and aganist
VS2006.

After the delphi spinoff story and all the confusion around this we take
a look at VS2006 and negativly recognize that the "good" visual
development are only possible if you use .NET. Without .NET you have the
old non visual style (c++).

We (and also other) don't like to be hard bonded to .NET, we like to be
independed and use our codebase also for 32bit.

Delphi have - at the time - the benefit that you can do single source
development for both platforms (Win32 + .NET).

Because we (and also other) use for all our applications a common code
base (Win32+.NET) this is a killer argument for BDS (with all the
problems). This is unique for BDS.

But finally 32bit is past... the futuere IS 64bit. All future decision
about dev tools are affected by 64bit.

If you have an develoment tool that have 64-bit visual develoment with
VCL for both (Win64 and .NET) this is killer feature that beat again
VS2006. Also for VS2006 Users.

If you only support .NET there ist is no really benefit BDS again VS2006.

with best ergards

Nils Bödeker

_________________________________

Verlag Eugen Ulmer
Datenbanken und IT-Entwicklung

Nils Bödeker
Bürgerwohlsweg 7
D-28215 Bremen
Germany

Tel: +49 (0)421 - 3795020
Fax: +49 (0)421 - 3795021
Mobil: +49 (0) 172 - 7468066

nboe...@ulmer.de
www.ulmer.de / www.nbsoft.de

yahoo ID: nilsboedeker
Skype ID: nilsboedeker
ICQ ID: 206474523

[Micha Nelissen]

Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo) wrote:
> Just to set the record straight, I was never an opponent of 64-bit
> Delphi. I was, however, and always will be, a proponent of sound
> business strategy.

Hehe, that does not even imply that you are going to actually follow a
'sound' business strategy, much less imply whatever this 'soundness' may
mean.

Micha

[Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]]

> That's one way of putting it. The disagreement is question is the
> prioritization of a Native 64-bit Delphi Compiler... Lower its priority
> enough, and it won't happen.

I am against many things in life, but if I were put into a position where I
had the best interests of another person or company then I would make
decisions based on that and not my own personal beliefs. Whether Nick
personally likes/dislikes the idea of native 64 bit I am sure he is one of
those people who puts the commercial interests of his company before his
personal choices.

[OBones]

Just for the record, I had a meeting today with my "boss", and the topic
diverted to 64 bit and .NetCF support. While the later is not high on
our list, the former is very much as it would allow us to go over the
2GB limit for our server side processes which do A LOT of data
processing. Yes, we could rework this not to reach that limit, but that
would imply lots of work very hard to justify to upper level management.
Oh, and by the way, we are hardware vendors, so we will have access to
64 bit mainstream machines very very soon, hence the need for a 64 bit
compiler quite fast.
Ok, I understand I'm just one more, but how many look around, don't ask
and simply go away?

[or...@sf.net]

what about putting ressources on fpc compiler as IBM did for linux
kernel. it already target win32, win64, linux, wince and a lot others

this could give breath to focus on rtl/vcl unicode/64 bits port
and then make possible a D2007 WIN64 !

[Craig Stuntz [TeamB]]

OBones wrote:

> Just for the record, I had a meeting today with my "boss", and the
> topic diverted to 64 bit and .NetCF support. While the later is not
> high on our list, the former is very much as it would allow us to go
> over the 2GB limit for our server side processes which do A LOT of
> data processing.

Do note that Delphi's MM now supports /3GB, which can give you 3 GB on
Win32 and 4 GB on Win64 in your 32 bit code. Not a replacement for true
64 bit code, mind you, but it does give you a bit of breathing room.

--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Borland newsgroup denizen Sergio González has a new CD of
Irish music out, and it's good: http://tinyurl.com/7hgfr

[Bryce K. Nielsen]

> I only want to point out that native 64 bit development (with visual
> development by 64bit vcl) ist an (killer)-argument for BDS and aganist
> VS2006.
>

I'll second that. I know _plenty_ of purse-string holders that have opted to
not do Delphi due to current (old Borland) management of the product and an
unclear future. So, they went with Microsoft, C# and DotNet. BUT these same
managers have also said that if Delphi had a native Win64 compiler, they'd
jump the DotNet bandwagon to go back to native code in a heartbeat.

-BKN

[Allen Bauer]

>> Just to set the record straight, I was never an opponent of 64-bit
>> Delphi. I was, however, and always will be, a proponent of sound
>> business strategy.
>
> Hehe, that does not even imply that you are going to actually follow a
> 'sound' business strategy, much less imply whatever this 'soundness' may
> mean.

Nick is not alone in this. Where Nick may have weaknesses, there are plenty
of folks here who will have those strengths. We hired Nick for his
strengths, which once you net it all out, it was a clear and distinct gain.
So, Nick wasn't simply tossed into the deep end and told to swim... He'll
get plenty of support and encouragement from both his manager, his peers,
and everyone in between.

Yes, Nick plays a very key and critical role... yet his is not the *only*
one. There are plenty of checks and balances to ensure that no one person's
agenda is the only thing that is played-out.

--
Allen Bauer
DevCo Chief Scientist
Borland^H^H^H^H^H^H^HDevCo Software Corporation.
http://blogs.borland.com/abauer

[Andrea Raimondi]

Michael Swindell (Borland) wrote:
>[LOTS of interesting info]

Excellent and very well put post.
It also sheds some light on what's cooking in the labs.

Thank you for sharing.

Andrew

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Allen Bauer wrote:

> Yes, Nick plays a very key and critical role... yet his is not the

> only one. There are plenty of checks and balances to ensure that no

> one person's agenda is the only thing that is played-out.

It's rapidly becoming clear that my role is more to /convince/ that to
decree. ;-)

[Brad White]

"Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)" <nickh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4492f34d$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...

> It's rapidly becoming clear that my role is more to /convince/ that to
> decree. ;-)
>

s/that/than/

--
Brad.

[Barry Kelly]

That will affect the wrong that, and without a '/g' at the end, it won't
hit the second that, which is the wrong that (assuming POSIX sed s
command).

<g>

-- Barry

--
http://barrkel.blogspot.com/

[Allen Bauer]

>> "Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)" <nickh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4492f34d$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> > It's rapidly becoming clear that my role is more to /convince/ that to
>> > decree. ;-)
>> >
>>
>> s/that/than/
>
> That will affect the wrong that, and without a '/g' at the end, it won't
> hit the second that, which is the wrong that (assuming POSIX sed s
> command).
>
> <g>
>
> -- Barry

;-)...

[Brad White]

Corrected correction

s/that/than/g
s/than/that/

--
Brad.

[Matt Jacobs]

Dennis Landi <den...@dennislandi.com> wrote:

>I have a related question: Is there a anyone in Borland/DevCo that is
>actually championing a 64-bit Native Delphi Compiler? I, personally,
>can't think of a single individual within Borland/DevCo. Is there one?

Which may explain why at least one mISV is dumping Delphi for MSVC.

The MicroISV Show #8 - Marcus Tettmar - MJTNet
http://channel9.msdn.com/Shows/The_MicroISV_Show

Fast forward to about 5:00 minutes into the call.

[OBones]

Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
> OBones wrote:
>
>
>>Just for the record, I had a meeting today with my "boss", and the
>>topic diverted to 64 bit and .NetCF support. While the later is not
>>high on our list, the former is very much as it would allow us to go
>>over the 2GB limit for our server side processes which do A LOT of
>>data processing.
>
>
> Do note that Delphi's MM now supports /3GB, which can give you 3 GB on
> Win32 and 4 GB on Win64 in your 32 bit code. Not a replacement for true
> 64 bit code, mind you, but it does give you a bit of breathing room.

Good point. We'll see how that goes, but I don't know if ADO supports
this as well...

--
Olivier Sannier
JVCL Coordinator
http://jvcl.sf.net/

Find more about me on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/obones

[Lauchlan M]

> I'm in charge of managing and maintaining the roadmap.

I don't understand how this can be one person's job in a company like
Borland/Devco, unless that one person essentially acts as a secretary for
recording decisions. Surely decisions need input from the development team,
marketing, accounting, etc and all significant decisions must be made by
more than one person?

Lauchlan M

[Lauchlan M]

> one. There are plenty of checks and balances to ensure that no one
person's
> agenda is the only thing that is played-out.

Just as long as the checks and balances don't create too much bueacracy and
stop good things happening! ;)

Lauchlan M

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Lauchlan M wrote:

> Surely decisions need input from the development team,
> marketing, accounting, etc and all significant decisions must be made
> by more than one person?

Sure, I'll have input from all over, but as far as I know, the buck has
to stop somewhere, and that buck appears to be on my desk. ;-)

[Nick Hodges (Borland/DevCo)]

Lauchlan M wrote:

> Just as long as the checks and balances don't create too much
> bueacracy and stop good things happening! ;)

I think "reducing bureaucracy" is at the top of the agenda. ;-)

[Nils Boedeker]

Hi,

>
> I'll second that. I know _plenty_ of purse-string holders that have opted to
> not do Delphi due to current (old Borland) management of the product and an
> unclear future. So, they went with Microsoft, C# and DotNet. BUT these same
> managers have also said that if Delphi had a native Win64 compiler, they'd
> jump the DotNet bandwagon to go back to native code in a heartbeat.
>

I hope Devcon realize this and invest there ressources in this direction...

Nils

[Eric Grange]

> I just want to say that some of us are very please you brought this up.

Seconded.

Eric

[Marco van de Voort]

On 2006-06-16, Nils Boedeker <nils.boede...@t-online.de> wrote:
> Because we (and also other) use for all our applications a common code
> base (Win32+.NET) this is a killer argument for BDS (with all the
> problems). This is unique for BDS.

Do you actually expect the single source concept to last long term? I've my
doubts about that.

(so not .NET and win32 in one IDE, but actually the feasability of
significant new projects with a dual target setup)

[Marco van de Voort]

On 2006-06-16, OBones <obones_gfd_@_gfz_altern.org> wrote:
> Just for the record, I had a meeting today with my "boss", and the topic
> diverted to 64 bit and .NetCF support.

Why native for 64-bit and .NET for small defines? Other way around seems
more logical?

[Craig Stuntz [TeamB]]

Marco van de Voort wrote:

> On 2006-06-16, Nils Boedeker <nils.boede...@t-online.de>
> wrote:
> > Because we (and also other) use for all our applications a common
> > code base (Win32+.NET) this is a killer argument for BDS (with all
> > the problems). This is unique for BDS.
>
> Do you actually expect the single source concept to last long term?

I do, based on the presence of things like VCL for WPF on the roadmap.
One of the better legacies of Kylix is that the VCL is really built for
cross-platform use.

--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz

Want to help make Delphi and InterBase better? Use QC!
http://qc.borland.com -- Vote for important issues

[Craig Stuntz [TeamB]]

Marco van de Voort wrote:

> That could point to a mere migration path. Not a longterm single
> source solution.

That's what people said about VCL for .NET, too, but I like it better
than WinForms in many respects, and Borland has certainly been
consistent in saying that it was never intended as a "mere migration
path." I've quantified this on my blog.

> > One of the better legacies of Kylix is that the VCL is really built
> > for cross-platform use.
>

> I take that with a grain of salt. Sure, it cleaned up a bit. "really
> built" is the hyperbole of the year however. Specially since the VCL
> didn't actually run with Kylix (CLX did)

The VCL had to be rewired somewhat to make CLX possible. The same
foundation helped with VCL for .NET. That's all I meant.

--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz

IB 6 versions prior to 6.0.1.6 are pre-release and may corrupt
your DBs! Open Edition users, get 6.0.1.6 from http://mers.com

[Marco van de Voort]

On 2006-06-21, Craig Stuntz [TeamB] <craig_...@nospam.please> wrote:
>> On 2006-06-16, Nils Boedeker <nils.boede...@t-online.de>
>> wrote:
>> > Because we (and also other) use for all our applications a common
>> > code base (Win32+.NET) this is a killer argument for BDS (with all
>> > the problems). This is unique for BDS.
>>
>> Do you actually expect the single source concept to last long term?
>
> I do, based on the presence of things like VCL for WPF on the roadmap.

That could point to a mere migration path. Not a longterm single source
solution.

> One of the better legacies of Kylix is that the VCL is really built for
> cross-platform use.

I take that with a grain of salt. Sure, it cleaned up a bit. "really built"

[Randy Magruder]

Marco van de Voort wrote:

> >> Do you actually expect the single source concept to last long term?

"Expect" is too strong a word, Marco. It certainly won't last all by
itself. Like any other initiative, it needs investment. That means
VCL.NET Component vendors supplying components that work on all
platforms that VCL supports, making sure that VCL for Win32 gets new
language enhancements that the .NET version is (and visa versa).

But yes, if the framework is rich enough to support the various
platforms, you should be able to maintain a mostly single source code
base and ship on separate platforms.

> That could point to a mere migration path. Not a longterm single
source solution.

Not everyone has the luxury of rewriting large applications. Even if
you 'intend' to migrate the source code to something else, it may or
may not happen. In the meantime, if it is production code, it needs to
keep WORKING. That's an advantage that is unique to Delphi right now.

Randy

[Marco van de Voort]

On 2006-06-22, Randy Magruder <randy.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
>> >> Do you actually expect the single source concept to last long term?
>
> "Expect" is too strong a word, Marco.

Well, the decision is also a "strong" one.

> It certainly won't last all by itself. Like any other initiative, it
> needs investment. That means VCL.NET Component vendors supplying
> components that work on all platforms that VCL supports,

Well, more or less the feasability of that is what I was hinting at, yes.
I've my doubts about that. Both that the burden is bigger this way than fork
and maintain them specifically (componentwriters and users), and that the
limitations of the one hold back the other.

> making sure that VCL for Win32 gets new language enhancements that the
> .NET version is (and visa versa).
> But yes, if the framework is rich enough to support the various
> platforms, you should be able to maintain a mostly single source code
> base and ship on separate platforms.

The new language enhancements seem to simply emulate a bit of .NET on win32,
without much ado, and without much regard for performance. Most components
that support both seem to heavily ifdef.

>> That could point to a mere migration path. Not a longterm single
> source solution.
>
> Not everyone has the luxury of rewriting large applications.

Indeed. Which is exactly my point. I have even doubts if the porting to .NET
is generally feasable.

> Even if you 'intend' to migrate the source code to something else, it may
> or may not happen.
> In the meantime, if it is production code, it needs to
> keep WORKING. That's an advantage that is unique to Delphi right now.

My point exactly. IMHO maintaining large apps for such widely varying
platforms is not feasable. I believe the step in the migration path is way
too big for non trivial apps.

(btw you seem to make wild assumptions on my personal situation. For me (and
my employer) the whole migration situation doesn't apply. The model and
fundamental concepts of our win32 webapps differ too much from ASP.NET

I just wanted to get some serious opinions, preferably supported by facts.
)

[Randy Magruder]

Marco van de Voort wrote:

> Well, more or less the feasability of that is what I was hinting at,
> yes. I've my doubts about that. Both that the burden is bigger this
> way than fork and maintain them specifically (componentwriters and
> users), and that the limitations of the one hold back the other.

What limitations?

> The new language enhancements seem to simply emulate a bit of .NET on
> win32, without much ado, and without much regard for performance.
> Most components that support both seem to heavily ifdef.

Which components? Examples please.

> Indeed. Which is exactly my point. I have even doubts if the porting
> to .NET is generally feasable.

I'm not sure you've really backed up your doubts with technical
reasoning here. You're just expressing doubts, which is fine, but you
haven't given out a lot of info that could help someone either confirm
or dispell your doubts.

> My point exactly. IMHO maintaining large apps for such widely varying
platforms is not feasable.

But you haven't spelled out why exactly.

> I believe the step in the migration path is way too big for non
trivial apps.

I think that would depend upon what kind of app it is and how it was
written. Sure, if I write a low level editor kernel as part of my app
that is very pointer-heavy and uses lots of Win32 calls, it becomes
less advantageous to have a single source code base. On the opposite
extreme, an app using only vanilla VCL will port nicely with little to
no code changes. So again, what kind of "non-trivial" app is being
discussed here?

> (btw you seem to make wild assumptions on my personal situation.

I wasn't aware I was making any 'wild assumptions' or assumptions at
all, for that matter. What assumption was I making?

> For me (and my employer) the whole migration situation doesn't
apply. The
> model and fundamental concepts of our win32 webapps differ too much
> from ASP.NET

So we're talking Win32 -> ASP.NET? I'm not sure how VCL.NET even
really plays in that sandbox, at least unless it's at the business
object, separate assembly level.

> I just wanted to get some serious opinions, preferably supported by
facts. )

The quality of opinions you get will be directly proportional to the
parameters you give out. What kind of application are you writing?
What kinds of components are you using? What is it that causes you to
'doubt' the viability of single source code? If it's asp.net, then I
can certainly understand more why that's not feasible, but for the
majority of rich client legacy Delphi apps out there, I haven't seen
the case made that it's not viable to have single source.

Randy

--