Borland's Kylix in limbo
Pete Goodwin
"Borland Software's Kylix development software remains in limbo, with
no new release having been issued for a year and the company not saying
whether there will be an upgrade."
Kylix is Borland's Delphi/C++ for Linux. I bought the first version and
found it one of the least stable of their offerings. Delphi has long
been a great product on Windows, now there was a chance it might
migrate to Linux. Sadly, that may no longer be so.
Pete Goodwin
Franoculator
and the letters spelled:
Sadly? This really has you choked up, doesn't it.
> Pete Goodwin
--
***** Matthew Powell *******************************
****** http://www.franoculator.com *****************
******* Visit us on #cola on irc.oftc.net **********
Terry
and this is what they wrote:
> Pete Goodwin spilled his alphabet soup on the floor,
> and the letters spelled:
>> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=122384005&eid=-50
>>
>> "Borland Software's Kylix development software remains in limbo, with
>> no new release having been issued for a year and the company not saying
>> whether there will be an upgrade."
>>
>> Kylix is Borland's Delphi/C++ for Linux. I bought the first version and
>> found it one of the least stable of their offerings. Delphi has long
>> been a great product on Windows, now there was a chance it might
>> migrate to Linux. Sadly, that may no longer be so.
>
> Sadly? This really has you choked up, doesn't it.
Yeah sure looks like it.
Pete doesn't understand the advantages of GPL software yet, and probably
never will.
If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own destiny,
instead of having it decided for you by some commercial vendor.
--
Kind Regards from Terry
My Desktop is powered by GNU/LinuX, Gentoo-1.4_rc2
New Homepage: http://milkstone.d2.net.au/
** Linux Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
paul cooke
> Franoculator threw some tea leaves on the floor
> and this is what they wrote:
>
>> Pete Goodwin spilled his alphabet soup on the floor,
>> and the letters spelled:
>>> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=122384005&eid=-50
>>>
>>> "Borland Software's Kylix development software remains in limbo, with
>>> no new release having been issued for a year and the company not saying
>>> whether there will be an upgrade."
>>>
>>> Kylix is Borland's Delphi/C++ for Linux. I bought the first version and
>>> found it one of the least stable of their offerings. Delphi has long
>>> been a great product on Windows, now there was a chance it might
>>> migrate to Linux. Sadly, that may no longer be so.
>>
>> Sadly? This really has you choked up, doesn't it.
>
> Yeah sure looks like it.
>
> Pete doesn't understand the advantages of GPL software yet, and probably
> never will.
>
> If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
> happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
>
> Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own destiny,
> instead of having it decided for you by some commercial vendor.
>
heh heh
lookey what we got here for Linux...
<http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=StaticPage&file=index&sURL=about>
|So just what is Lazarus?
|
|Lazarus is the class libraries for Free Pascal that emulate Delphi. Free
|Pascal is a GPL'ed compiler that runs on Linux, Win32, OS/2, 68K and more.
|Free Pascal is designed to be able to understand and compile Delphi
|syntax, which is of course OOP. Lazarus is the part of the missing puzzle
|that will allow you to develop Delphi like programs in all of the above
|platforms. Unlike Java which strives to be a write once run anywhere,
|Lazarus and Free Pascal strives for write once compile anywhere. Since the
|exact same compiler is available on all of the above platforms it means
|you don't need to do any recoding to produce identical products for
|different platforms.
|
|Yeah, but what about the GUI? What widget set are you using?
|
|That is the neat part. You decide. Lazarus is being developed to be totally
|and completely API independent. Once you write your code you just link it
|against the API widget set of your choice. If you want to use GTK+, great!
|If you want it to be Gnome compliant, great! As long as the interface code
|for the widget set you want to use is available you can link to it. If it
|isn't available, well you can write it.
|
|For example. Let's say you are creating a product on Windows using the
|standard Windows widgets. Now you want to create a Linux version. First
|you decide what widget set you want to use. Let's assume you want to use
|gtk+. So you copy the code over to your Linux development machine,
|compile, and link against the gtk+ interface unit. That's it. You've now
|just created a Linux version of the Windows product without any additional
|coding.
|
|At this point in the development we are using gtk+ as our initial API
|widget set. Some work is also being done with Qt and the Win32 API. As
|soon as Lazarus reaches a 1.0 release developers will be able to start to
|create the interface unit to tie the LCL (Lazarus Class Libraries) to
|other widget sets.
|
|So is this thing really RAD like Delphi?
|
|It sure is. Is it totally completed? No not yet. The forms design portion
|is still in need of a great deal of development. The over all IDE is
|complete and can be used for most programming needs. Several aspects of
|the project are still in need of help. Hint. Hint.
I'm dead chuffed here, well happy.
--
COMPUTER POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH CYBERCRUD!
Terry
<deletia>
>
> I'm dead chuffed here, well happy.
Goodwin won't be, unfortunately. His role is to criticise GNU/Linux,
not to be happy when there is a solution to his problem.
the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz
> Goodwin won't be, unfortunately. His role is to criticise GNU/Linux,
> not to be happy when there is a solution to his problem.
He's the self-appointed gnat in Gnuland.
--
the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz
You know, I almost put a .sig down here.
Ed Cogburn
Ummm, who cares? Kylix was never going to go very far, as long as they refused
to put a lot of effort behind it. Their babies are Delphi and JBuilder, the
Windows versions, thats what Borland spends its resources on, Kylix was nothing
more than an experiment for them, no matter what their PR people said. You
already have everything you need: kdevelop/xemacs/vim + g++ + qt.
Pete Goodwin
> Franoculator threw some tea leaves on the floor
> and this is what they wrote:
>
> > Pete Goodwin spilled his alphabet soup on the floor,
> > and the letters spelled:
> >> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=122384005&eid=-50
> > >
> >> "Borland Software's Kylix development software remains in limbo,
> with >> no new release having been issued for a year and the company
> not saying >> whether there will be an upgrade."
> > >
> >> Kylix is Borland's Delphi/C++ for Linux. I bought the first
> version and >> found it one of the least stable of their offerings.
> Delphi has long >> been a great product on Windows, now there was a
> chance it might >> migrate to Linux. Sadly, that may no longer be so.
> >
> > Sadly? This really has you choked up, doesn't it.
>
> Yeah sure looks like it.
>
> Pete doesn't understand the advantages of GPL software yet, and
> probably never will.
Terry doesn't get it and probably never will.
> If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
> happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
If you use free software, this kind of thing can happen, though in a
different form. If you can find the free software in the first place.
> Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own destiny,
> instead of having it decided for you by some commercial vendor.
I've yet to see a RAD package on Linux with the advanced controls of
Kylix. Like I said, you don't get it, do you Terry?
--
Pete Goodwin, using XanaNews 1.15.7.4 on Windows 2000.
"Start by doing the necessary, then the possible and suddenly you are
doing the impossible." (St. Francis of Assisi)
paul cooke
>
>> If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
>> happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
>
> If you use free software, this kind of thing can happen, though in a
> different form. If you can find the free software in the first place.
>
>> Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own destiny,
>> instead of having it decided for you by some commercial vendor.
>
> I've yet to see a RAD package on Linux with the advanced controls of
> Kylix. Like I said, you don't get it, do you Terry?
No... you don't get it.
OSS projects don't die like closed source programs. The code is still
available for those exisitng users to keep going and improve upon. Plus the
code gets stored in repositories such as sourceforge so even if a project
dies from lack of interest from it's originator, someone else can pick it
up much later and carry on with it.
With a closed source product, it dies unless you are very lucky and the
originator puts the source code out into the public domain.
Borland never put any real effort behind Kylix and went about it in a
half-assed way. They never really ported it over to Linux. They just used
WINE for it and left it stuck only producing code for x86 processors.
had they done a true Linux port, you would have Kylix capable of producing
runtime binaries for sparc, ppc, and other non-x86 procesors. Now that
would have been a true cross-platform development platform and would have
really kept them going.
As far as I'm concerned now, Lazarus and the Free Pascal Compiler is the way
forward for me. I never really could get my head around C or C++ (Too
cryptic), and I was formally trained in Pascal anyway.
Terry
and this is what they wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>
>> Goodwin won't be, unfortunately. His role is to criticise GNU/Linux,
>> not to be happy when there is a solution to his problem.
>
> He's the self-appointed gnat in Gnuland.
yeah ?
maybe he will buzz off ?
Linønut
> I've yet to see a RAD package on Linux with the advanced controls of
> Kylix. Like I said, you don't get it, do you Terry?
You don't get it. RAD is wayyyyyy overrated. The only kind of RAD
project... I repeat ... the **only** kind of RAD project, is a small
project.
RAD solves only one small area of problems in application development.
I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to a known asshole. Linux
must be making me stupid in this case.
--
Windows desktops and servers can find a safe haven on a
GNU/Linux/FreeBSD network!
Pete Goodwin
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>
> >
> >> If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
> >> happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
> >
> > If you use free software, this kind of thing can happen, though in a
> > different form. If you can find the free software in the first
> > place.
> >
> >> Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own
> destiny, >> instead of having it decided for you by some commercial
> vendor.
> >
> > I've yet to see a RAD package on Linux with the advanced controls of
> > Kylix. Like I said, you don't get it, do you Terry?
>
> No... you don't get it.
Neither apparently do you.
> OSS projects don't die like closed source programs. The code is still
> available for those exisitng users to keep going and improve upon.
> Plus the code gets stored in repositories such as sourceforge so even
> if a project dies from lack of interest from it's originator, someone
> else can pick it up much later and carry on with it.
Assuming existing users have the time and the inclination to do so.
> With a closed source product, it dies unless you are very lucky and
> the originator puts the source code out into the public domain.
Which does happen.
> Borland never put any real effort behind Kylix and went about it in a
> half-assed way. They never really ported it over to Linux. They just
> used WINE for it and left it stuck only producing code for x86
> processors.
Actually they used winelib. They aren't quite the same thing.
> had they done a true Linux port, you would have Kylix capable of
> producing runtime binaries for sparc, ppc, and other non-x86
> procesors. Now that would have been a true cross-platform development
> platform and would have really kept them going.
Since they only really had compilers for x86, that wasn't going to
happen anytime soon.
> As far as I'm concerned now, Lazarus and the Free Pascal Compiler is
> the way forward for me. I never really could get my head around C or
> C++ (Too cryptic), and I was formally trained in Pascal anyway.
C++ is arguable more powerful than Delphi Pascal.
--
Pete Goodwin, using XanaNews 1.15.7.3 on Windows XP.
"Small minds discuss people, average minds discuss events,
great minds discuss ideas."
Pete Goodwin
> On 2003-11-07, Pete Goodwin <pgoodwi...@TO.REPLY.sensaura.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I've yet to see a RAD package on Linux with the advanced controls of
> > Kylix. Like I said, you don't get it, do you Terry?
>
> You don't get it. RAD is wayyyyyy overrated. The only kind of RAD
> project... I repeat ... the only kind of RAD project, is a small
> project.
RAD makes GUI projects dead easy. That's why you don't get it.
> RAD solves only one small area of problems in application development.
If you truly understood what RAD can do, you wouldn't say that.
> I don't know why I'm bothering to respond to a known asshole. Linux
> must be making me stupid in this case.
Or perhaps you were stupid in the first place, judging by your inept
comments so far.
--
Pete Goodwin, using XanaNews 1.15.7.3 on Windows XP.
"Pie! Want pie now!!!" - Weebl and Bob
Pete Goodwin
Being able to port something from Windows directly to Linux was a big
advantage. One that never really quite took off.
As for kdevelop/xemacs/vim etc., you really haven't tried RAD with
Delphi if you believe such things.
--
Pete Goodwin, using XanaNews 1.15.7.3 on Windows XP.
"It is a fine thing to have ability, but the ability to discover
ability in others is the true test." - Elbert Hubbard
Terry
and this is what they wrote:
> Terry wrote:
>> Pete doesn't understand the advantages of GPL software yet, and
>> probably never will.
>> If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
>> happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
>
> If you use free software, this kind of thing can happen,
How ? (does anyone believe this Wintrolls tripe ?)
> though in a
> different form.
Example please ?
>If you can find the free software in the first place.
No problem, high quality Free Software is everywhere.
>
>> Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own destiny,
>> instead of having it decided for you by some commercial vendor.
>
> I've yet to see a RAD package on Linux with the advanced controls of
> Kylix.
Of course you would Pete.
Terry
and this is what they wrote:
> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=122384005&eid=-50
>
> "Borland Software's Kylix development software remains in limbo, with
> no new release having been issued for a year and the company not saying
> whether there will be an upgrade."
>
> Kylix is Borland's Delphi/C++ for Linux. I bought the first version and
> found it one of the least stable of their offerings.
Apparently so did everyone else.
> Delphi has long
> been a great product on Windows, now there was a chance it might
> migrate to Linux. Sadly, that may no longer be so.
The Borland GNU/Linux version was rejected by many developers as a
substandard, not finished product that was full of bugs.
I'm not supprised it's dead as GNU/Linux developers have been spoilt with
high quality apps that get bugs squashed fast, so they're not going to
accept junk from closed source companies.
Ed Cogburn
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
>
>>Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=122384005&eid=-50
>>>
>>>"Borland Software's Kylix development software remains in limbo,
>>>with no new release having been issued for a year and the company
>>>not saying whether there will be an upgrade."
>>>
>>>Kylix is Borland's Delphi/C++ for Linux. I bought the first version
>>>and found it one of the least stable of their offerings. Delphi has
>>>long been a great product on Windows, now there was a chance it
>>>might migrate to Linux. Sadly, that may no longer be so.
>>
>>Ummm, who cares? Kylix was never going to go very far, as long as
>>they refused to put a lot of effort behind it. Their babies are
>>Delphi and JBuilder, the Windows versions, thats what Borland spends
>>its resources on, Kylix was nothing more than an experiment for them,
>>no matter what their PR people said. You already have everything you
>>need: kdevelop/xemacs/vim + g++ + qt.
>
>
> Being able to port something from Windows directly to Linux was a big
> advantage. One that never really quite took off.
Kylix was what never quite took off. Kylix was billed as a solution to a
"problem" that already has many solutions, many of which are cheaper/better than
Kylix. wxWindows, and Qt Commercial are just 2 examples. Porting to/from Linux
and Windows is not a new idea, both wxWindows and Qt Commercial port between
Linux/Windows/MacOSX.
> As for kdevelop/xemacs/vim etc., you really haven't tried RAD with
> Delphi if you believe such things.
I used Kylix and C++Builder, I know what its capable of, but with Kylix, most of
that capability was theoretical, not actual. If you ever tried to do anything
non-trivial with Kylix on Linux (not Delphi or C++Builder on Windows) you would
know it was full of bugs and quirks that made making a non-trivial app difficult
on it. Never mind their use of WINE to emulate the IDE, and using a special
static version of the Qt library, which made distribution of a Kylix app
annoying. Worst of all was the open question of whether Borland would stick
with this or not. I was on Borland's C++Builder newsgroup for awhile, and we
were already bitching about Borland's lack of committment to C++Builder, Delphi
and JBuilder are what bring in the money for Borland. Their lack of committment
is what killed Kylix, just as their lack of committment to C++Builder eventually
made me realize I was better off with open-source development tools, because
while they may not be as polished in appearance, they are at least solid, and
actively supported, with frequent updates being released, bugs that actually get
addressed, and I can with them accomplish the same thing. Sure, I miss the
context sensitive help with F1, but having a info or browser window open besides
my editor window is good enough to let me get on with what I want to do.
Ed Cogburn
> paul cooke wrote:
>
>>
>>OSS projects don't die like closed source programs. The code is still
>>available for those exisitng users to keep going and improve upon.
>>Plus the code gets stored in repositories such as sourceforge so even
>>if a project dies from lack of interest from it's originator, someone
>>else can pick it up much later and carry on with it.
>
>
> Assuming existing users have the time and the inclination to do so.
If the project is worthy enough, there is almost always someone around to keep
it going.
>>With a closed source product, it dies unless you are very lucky and
>>the originator puts the source code out into the public domain.
>
>
> Which does happen.
Which almost never happens.
>>Borland never put any real effort behind Kylix and went about it in a
>>half-assed way. They never really ported it over to Linux. They just
>>used WINE for it and left it stuck only producing code for x86
>>processors.
>
>
> Actually they used winelib. They aren't quite the same thing.
A pedantic point.
>>had they done a true Linux port, you would have Kylix capable of
>>producing runtime binaries for sparc, ppc, and other non-x86
>>procesors. Now that would have been a true cross-platform development
>>platform and would have really kept them going.
>
>
> Since they only really had compilers for x86, that wasn't going to
> happen anytime soon.
Another pedantic point.
>>As far as I'm concerned now, Lazarus and the Free Pascal Compiler is
>>the way forward for me. I never really could get my head around C or
>>C++ (Too cryptic), and I was formally trained in Pascal anyway.
>
>
> C++ is arguable more powerful than Delphi Pascal.
Another pedantic point.
Pete Goodwin
> Pete Goodwin threw some tea leaves on the floor
> and this is what they wrote:
>
>> http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php?id=122384005&eid=-50
>>
>> "Borland Software's Kylix development software remains in limbo, with
>> no new release having been issued for a year and the company not saying
>> whether there will be an upgrade."
>>
>> Kylix is Borland's Delphi/C++ for Linux. I bought the first version and
>> found it one of the least stable of their offerings.
>
> Apparently so did everyone else.
Since C++Builder, they seem to have floundered producing new products that
actually work. Delphi is far older but more robust.
>> Delphi has long
>> been a great product on Windows, now there was a chance it might
>> migrate to Linux. Sadly, that may no longer be so.
>
> The Borland GNU/Linux version was rejected by many developers as a
> substandard, not finished product that was full of bugs.
True.
> I'm not supprised it's dead as GNU/Linux developers have been spoilt with
> high quality apps that get bugs squashed fast, so they're not going to
> accept junk from closed source companies.
It was a great idea, just unfinished.
--
Pete Goodwin, using knode on Linux Mandrake 9.2
Ed Cogburn
Qt Free is very close, as far as a Widget library. It even supports the
"property" concept except it does so with a meta compiler instead of altering
the C++ language. We don't have the integrated polished IDE like Kylix, but
kdevelop is fairly close. Qt Free with kdevelop is awfully good though...
More to the point however is what are going to do with Kylix since it isn't
being supported anymore? All those bugs identified since its release will never
get fixed. That's what happens when you use closed-source development tools,
and the developer disappears. That won't happen with gcc, gtk, qt free,
kdevelop, xemacs, whatever open source tools you use.
Pete Goodwin
> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>> paul cooke wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>OSS projects don't die like closed source programs. The code is still
>>>available for those exisitng users to keep going and improve upon.
>>>Plus the code gets stored in repositories such as sourceforge so even
>>>if a project dies from lack of interest from it's originator, someone
>>>else can pick it up much later and carry on with it.
>>
>>
>> Assuming existing users have the time and the inclination to do so.
>
> If the project is worthy enough, there is almost always someone around to
> keep it going.
Define "worthy enough"?
>>>With a closed source product, it dies unless you are very lucky and
>>>the originator puts the source code out into the public domain.
>>
>> Which does happen.
>
> Which almost never happens.
I repeat, which does happen.
>>>Borland never put any real effort behind Kylix and went about it in a
>>>half-assed way. They never really ported it over to Linux. They just
>>>used WINE for it and left it stuck only producing code for x86
>>>processors.
>>
>>
>> Actually they used winelib. They aren't quite the same thing.
>
> A pedantic point.
So WINE and winelib are the same thing? One is "not an emulator" whilst the
other is a library to give WIN32 api on Linux.
>>>had they done a true Linux port, you would have Kylix capable of
>>>producing runtime binaries for sparc, ppc, and other non-x86
>>>procesors. Now that would have been a true cross-platform development
>>>platform and would have really kept them going.
>>
>> Since they only really had compilers for x86, that wasn't going to
>> happen anytime soon.
>
> Another pedantic point.
But a very relevant point.
>>>As far as I'm concerned now, Lazarus and the Free Pascal Compiler is
>>>the way forward for me. I never really could get my head around C or
>>>C++ (Too cryptic), and I was formally trained in Pascal anyway.
>>
>> C++ is arguable more powerful than Delphi Pascal.
>
> Another pedantic point.
8)
Pete Goodwin
> the Entity Formerly Known As Jazz threw some tea leaves on the floor
> and this is what they wrote:
>
>> Terry wrote:
>>
>>> Goodwin won't be, unfortunately. His role is to criticise GNU/Linux,
>>> not to be happy when there is a solution to his problem.
>>
>> He's the self-appointed gnat in Gnuland.
>
> yeah ?
>
> maybe he will buzz off ?
You wish.
Rick
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
>> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>> paul cooke wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>OSS projects don't die like closed source programs. The code is still
>>>>available for those exisitng users to keep going and improve upon. Plus
>>>>the code gets stored in repositories such as sourceforge so even if a
>>>>project dies from lack of interest from it's originator, someone else
>>>>can pick it up much later and carry on with it.
>>>
>>>
>>> Assuming existing users have the time and the inclination to do so.
>>
>> If the project is worthy enough, there is almost always someone around
>> to keep it going.
>
> Define "worthy enough"?
Someone thinks there is enough need/want to justify his/her effort, or
someone wants that particular project to work.
>
>>>>With a closed source product, it dies unless you are very lucky and the
>>>>originator puts the source code out into the public domain.
>>>
>>> Which does happen.
>>
>> Which almost never happens.
>
> I repeat, which does happen.
Which almost never happens. Statistically never.
>
>>>>Borland never put any real effort behind Kylix and went about it in a
>>>>half-assed way. They never really ported it over to Linux. They just
>>>>used WINE for it and left it stuck only producing code for x86
>>>>processors.
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually they used winelib. They aren't quite the same thing.
>>
>> A pedantic point.
>
> So WINE and winelib are the same thing? One is "not an emulator" whilst
> the other is a library to give WIN32 api on Linux.
One allows you to run win32 binaries under linux, the other allows you to
compile win32 source under linux.
(snip)
--
Rick
Francis Burton
>If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
>happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
>
>Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own destiny,
>instead of having it decided for you by some commercial vendor.
So what GPL equivalent to Delphi is currently most favoured?
I use Delphi under Windoze - nice design, works very well.
If I were to migrate to Linux, having Delphi, or something
very similar, there would be an enormous help.
Francis
Terry
and this is what they wrote:
> Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
>> Pete Goodwin wrote:
>>>>With a closed source product, it dies unless you are very lucky and
>>>>the originator puts the source code out into the public domain.
>>>
>>> Which does happen.
>>
>> Which almost never happens.
>
> I repeat, which does happen.
I agree with Ed, closed source when it dies is almost *never* put into
the public domain.
Sure there are a few examples, but they're a pitiful percentage of the
overall total. The point of GPL is that *anyone* can pick it up,
anytime, no restrictions.
Terry
A pity, as obviously a number of developers including yourself saw
great potential in it.
One of the risks of closed source tho. Naturally although a developer
may not maintain a GPL package after some point, its usually picked up
by someone else and further developed.
>
> --
> Pete Goodwin, using knode on Linux Mandrake 9.2
Terry
and this is what they wrote:
> In article <v0tq71-...@gronk.porter.net>, Terry <t...@no-spam.org> wrote:
>>If you use commercial software Pete, this kind of thing is what can
>>happen. You made your choice, and now you're stuck with it.
>>
>>Next time use a GPL programming language and decide your own destiny,
>>instead of having it decided for you by some commercial vendor.
>
> So what GPL equivalent to Delphi is currently most favoured?
I don't use it myself, but here is a user comment that may help ?
........by uradu.....
I've been a huge fan of Delphi for years, but seeing Borland's
attitude lately, and especially their PR double-speak and kowtowing
to Microsoft, I think it's time to move on. They seem to be spending
a lot more time dot-netting Delphi than evolving the langugage.
For native Win32 apps I still think Delphi is best, even in arrested
development. But for cross-platform apps I'm very intrigued by Python
and wxWindows (or wxPython). The apps seem to be truly portable, and
wxWindows has such good binding to native widgets that you can create
truly nice-looking and seamless GUIs. For most business-type
applications I think it's a really viable option.
So these seem to be your options :-
Python using wxWindows, GTK, or QT
Perl using wxWindows, GTK, or QT
C/C++ using wxWindows, GTK, or QT
>
> I use Delphi under Windoze - nice design, works very well.
> If I were to migrate to Linux, having Delphi, or something
> very similar, there would be an enormous help.
>
> Francis
Kingbarry2000
news:chl081-...@gronk.porter.net...
> Pete Goodwin threw some tea leaves on the floor
> and this is what they wrote:
>
> > Ed Cogburn wrote:
> >
> >> Pete Goodwin wrote:
> >>>>With a closed source product, it dies unless you are very lucky and
> >>>>the originator puts the source code out into the public domain.
> >>>
> >>> Which does happen.
> >>
> >> Which almost never happens.
> >
> > I repeat, which does happen.
>
> I agree with Ed, closed source when it dies is almost *never* put into
> the public domain.
>
> Sure there are a few examples, but they're a pitiful percentage of the
> overall total. The point of GPL is that *anyone* can pick it up,
> anytime, no restrictions.
>
>
Closed source is an asset on the books, and is never put into PD.
Old closed source is, sometimes, when newer versions come out, sometimes.
Re: open source - anything with a large following may / may not, but
most have little following and when they are picked up, its usually by
script kiddies.
--
Porto le corna ch'ogni Huomo le vede, e qualch' Altro le porta che nol
crede.
Francis Burton
>I don't use it myself, but here is a user comment that may help ?
Thank you, Terry. Borland's attitude and policy saddens me -
It looks like I will be stuck on Windows for the time being,
at least for the applications which rely on the various Delphi
components that I put effort into developing.
Francis
Ed Cogburn
Somebody snipped the part where I believe I said something like "at
least for large projects". Most OS projects with a small following have
a small following for a reason. I believe a majority of OS projects are
*supposed* to die, its a natural part of the open source process, open
source evolution if you will. Its the good projects, the tried and
proven ones that live on almost indefinitely. As for script kiddies, so
what? If they can't produce, then the project stays dead, if they can
produce, then odds are they are more than just script kiddies. The
important point is that with open source projects, once they are dead,
there is still always the chance for resurrection, because the code
doesn't disappear. Closed source almost always disappears, because
companies fear their own products, given life as open source, coming
back to haunt them by becoming competition to their own new products.