It would have links to PDF's anyone could print as a package.
The purpose would of this package would NOT be to convert big numbers of
VS purchases over to Delphi.
The purpose would be to support existing users inside a company in using
or continuing to use Delphi, and to support custom-software developers
as well as producers of software products written in Delphi.
The idea of this package is not to generate a new mass-market surge of
Delphi, but to stem the loss of users and retain customers, by
presenting Delphi as a viable tool without losing credibility via a
claim it will someday replace VS.
- What is Delphi and what's it for?
Short history, short explanation, and a masterful statement promoting it
as a high-productivity tool versus VS without slamming VS or Microsoft.
- Delphi Features
Bullet points on features, which although referencing technical
features, will not bury by non-techs (3 pages).
- Co-existing in a Microsoft environment
Delphi has co-existed successfully with MS's tools on the MS platform
Delphi is not an anti-MS platform tool or non-MS platform tool, it
primarily is designed to be a specific kind of productivity tool for the
C# and VB.net programmers and managers usually have no trouble reading
and understanding Delphi Pascal code.
No drivers or special platform-based setup required to use
Delphi includes the source-code for it's own components, as it always has.
Very large number of pre-built solutions from 3rd parties that include
source code, many of which are free or inexpensive.
Solid numbers of programmers whe are trained and experienced in Delphi,
and while this number is exceeded by Microsoft's own tools, the Delphi
numbers in turn far from niche. (1 page)
As it exists now.
- CodeGear / Borland
Public company parent, cash-flow positive language division, briefs
analysts regularly, stock 60% institutionally held, whatever else.
Cool idea -- but this is no small task. How about we all work on it
We can get it all worked up, and once it is done, I'll get it put on
Delphi Product Manager - CodeGear
My immediate supervisor and customers are already convinced thanks to the
success of the applications we've already delivered, though one occasionally
has questions about long-term viability, but we sometimes have to make the
case to their supervisors. I think a resource like this could be
tremendously helpful and it wouldn't surprise me if brings in at least a few
new Delphi developers in addition to helping us continue to make the case
for Delphi within our shops.
"Nick Hodges (CodeGear)" <nick....@codegear.com> wrote in message
Brilliant idea guys.
I love it!
I added a link to the roadmap.
I wrote up some stuff - Delphi Features (a bunch of draft stuff).
And also a little intro to the RoadMap.
Note how I turned the scary negative fact of the RoadMap not being
guaranteed, into a feature...
"And CodeGear will update the details in the RoadMap as the plan is
tuned to adapt to changes in the market and technology environments."
Instead of apologizing, disclaiming, or doing legal squirming over the
fact that RoadMap might change, PROMISE that it WILL change!
(PS: And it's really not a slimy trick, it's just reality that the
environment sometimes changes ahead of your plans being realized.)
100% agreed. But here is a matter of agility, which is a way of thinking and nothing
changes so hard as men thoughts. This is natural. But this doesn't mean that we must
accept inertia, even if someone has a much more mass (historical, cultural,
recognition-fame aso.) - so, according to the physics laws, the inertia has a much
bigger value for these systems. Continuing the analogy, imho, if a small system (like
a pedestrian) can very easy to change the direction with 90 degrees at any time when
he likes, when we have a very big system (let's say a fighting plane) it's much more
difficult to change the direction so they need very good radar and bases 'in the
field' to say to them: 'clear sky there', 'thunderstorm there', 'enemies in that
part', 'fuel in the other'... I wonder now if someone from them will prove if really
knows to pilot a fighting plane... ;-)
> Instead of apologizing, disclaiming, or doing legal squirming over the
> fact that RoadMap might change, PROMISE that it WILL change!
> (PS: And it's really not a slimy trick, it's just reality that the
> environment sometimes changes ahead of your plans being realized.)
Imho, here we have an interesting thing to comment. I think that CG must not promise
that it will change but rather that they are prepared to embrace (not to fight) and
possible change which will occur. (Specifications change?.... hummm... this never
happen... ...or it will?... <g>)
We must build (IT) systems to model the reality which is a thing much more complex
that we can imagine (...it seems that God is smarter than us... <g>) so, we must
accept that our bat-eyed, frozen IT ecosystems is predestined to evolve in describing
the evolving reality. That's why we must accept that one of the most important (if
not the most important, according to Steve McConnell) part of an IT system is
managing of complexity. And, included in this, I'd humbly point out the change
management which must be (one of) the central point(s) of any IT being.
In order to minimize the change, we must be closer to reality which we model, and
here perhaps is better to not tell lies. (To lie it's a sin, you know...). Ie. to
have something called "duck programming" ("If makes like a duck and act like a duck
then it's a duck"). Ie. when I look to a code then I must see for ex: lTemp:
TStringList; or mDictionary: Map string to string; not to figure out that those
arrays and lists are in fact a 'reality workaround' trying to express a list of
strings or a map. You see, "duck typing" is so popular (even if it has well known
drawbacks) just because it (seems) to be closer to reality, it's more natural. "Duck
Programming" - That's why, imho, VCL IS Delphi as someone said, and so, a _flexible_
framework which will conform to developer's reality would be important. Here, of
course, appears the big problem of reality drift, between what we have 'in the field'
and what CG (or any software company, for that matter) _thinks_ that we have. Well,
it seems that we must cooperate. Anyway, reality is our game, isn't it?
>I wrote up some stuff - Delphi Features (a bunch of draft stuff).
Great -- thanks very much.
> PROMISE that it WILL change!
Yep, you are getting the hang of it.
And I note that the roadmap already has changed once since it's initial
> Yep, you are getting the hang of it.
> And I note that the roadmap already has changed once since it's initial
> publication. ;-)
> We must build (IT) systems to model the reality which is a thing much
> more complex that we can imagine
Amen to that, brother.
In modeling theory, the only perfect model of anything is it's duplicate.
Therefore, in software and process development, we are always creating
simplified models of what we hope is the most important subset of the
most important features, and partially succeeding to the greatest extent
> I wrote up some stuff - Delphi Features (a bunch of draft stuff).
Your features make it sound like Delphi is only appropriate for
advanced users, which I don't agree with.
> Richard Grossman wrote:
> > I wrote up some stuff - Delphi Features (a bunch of draft stuff).
> Great -- thanks very much.
> > PROMISE that it WILL change!
> Yep, you are getting the hang of it.
You might want to add a history of the roadmap, with some short notes on why
things have changed the way they have.
Hannes Danzl [NexusDB Developer]
Newsgroup archive at http://www.tamaracka.com/search.htm
> Your features make it sound like Delphi is only appropriate for
> advanced users, which I don't agree with.
Which, of course, you are free to change on the wiki. ;-)
...and when you're thinking that (usually) simple things gets you much more closer to
the reality... For ex.:
- 'Case' for non-ordinal data types
- for <var> := <start> to <stop> [step <n>] do...
> Which, of course, you are free to change on the wiki. ;-)
You are absolutely right.
> You are absolutely right.
> Bruce McGee wrote:
> > You are absolutely right.
Don't let it go to your head. :)