Is there a future for Borland in .NET?
Nikos
David Clegg
> Your opinion please
I most definitely see Borland having a strong future in .NET. And IMHO
Enterprise Core Objects is going to be a key player in Borlands success
in the .NET arena. This is one area I think their main .NET competitor
won't come close to touching for quite some time.
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
Vote 1 http://cc.borland.com/codecentral/ccweb.exe/listing?id=21489 :-)
Now supports Google Groups searching with Dyna-extend(tm) technology!
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"Marge, your paintings look like the things they look like." - Homer
Simpson.
Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software]
Kristofer Skaug
> Your opinion please
Is there a future for _anyone_ in .NET?
--
Kristofer
David Clegg
> hehe, you convert :-)
Totally! I'm thinking of renaming my blog "Confessions of an ECO
Junkie" :-)
Ever since C#Builder came out, ECO was one technology I was extremely
interested in investigating further. But it wasn't until recently that
I actually knuckled down and started learning it. Now I can't picture
life without it. ;-)
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
Vote 1 http://cc.borland.com/codecentral/ccweb.exe/listing?id=21489 :-)
Now supports Google Groups searching with Dyna-extend(tm) technology!
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"Beer. Now there's a temporary solution." - Homer Simpson
Steve Heights put an AT here this is a DOT
Is there a future for anyone _outside_ .NET?
Steve
Adam Roslon
<anaconda51(put an AT here)gmx(this is a DOT)net> says...
> Is there a future for anyone _outside_ .NET?
>
I hope so if Microsoft plans on releasing new versions of their Office
suite.
Adam Roslon
says...
> Your opinion please
>
>
>
I think Borland will continue to play a large part in .NET however I
don't see the future of .NET as being strong. .NET is not catching on as
Microsoft hoped and knowing Microsoft from past experience It's only a
matter of time until their marketing machine rolls out the the next
technology to save us all and .NET slowly fades into the sunset.
Eric Grange
Is there a future for anyone outside Java?
Anyway, what's sure is that there isn't much of a future for .Net 1.1
as it already can't access some recent MS APIs as discussed in another
thread.
Eric
roman modic
"Steve Heights" <anaconda51(put an AT here)gmx(this is a DOT)net> wrote in
message news:42e0...@newsgroups.borland.com...
>> Is there a future for _anyone_ in .NET?
>
> Is there a future for anyone _outside_ .NET?
>
>
There is future only for those on the edge ...
Cheers, Roman
Dominic Willems
> Is there a future for anyone _outside_ .NET?
Would there be any statistics about what group of developers are moving
to .NET, I wonder.
Logically, I'd presume that, at the moment, the most prevalent group
there are the VB developers, since they have been quite assertively
ushered into that direction by their beloved tools provider.
For those doing Delphi, the advantages of .NET are not that striking,
since essentially there isn't an app that Delphi Win32 can't do
elegantly today. Logical that Delphi developers wait for at least .NET
2.0 to surface.
David Clegg
> Would there be any statistics about what group of developers are
> moving to .NET, I wonder.
I know its not much of a sample, but 100% of the last two companies to
employ me are migrating to .NET. One was mainly a Visual Studio shop,
with me as the renegade Delphi developer, and my current employer is
predominantly a Delphi shop. Most of our new development will be in C#,
although Delphi still has a strong future there.
In fact, my boss talked to me today about upgrading from D6 to D2005
for some of our serverside stuff, and we're all currently busy porting
an existing C++ app to D6 (with a week and a half deadline given to
us). And we have a Delphi for .NET app in production, thanks to me. <g>
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
Vote 1 http://cc.borland.com/codecentral/ccweb.exe/listing?id=21489 :-)
Now supports Google Groups searching with Dyna-extend(tm) technology!
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand." - Homer
Simpson
Sergio Sette
> And IMHO
> Enterprise Core Objects is going to be a key player in Borlands success
> in the .NET arena. This is one area I think their main .NET competitor
> won't come close to touching for quite some time.
>
Are you sure ? There are so many OPF for .NET ...(please see :
http://sharptoolbox.com/Category74089b0a-1105-4389-b1db-eedf27e20cfb.aspx)
Some of these are really very interesting (i.e. nhibernate - a .net porting
of the java ORM Hibernate) Free and Open Source.
Best Regards
Sergio sette
David Clegg
> Are you sure ? There are so many OPF for .NET
Without meaning to trivialise the products you mentioned, ECO is so
much more than a mere OPF. The object persistence capabilities are just
one of many frameworks and benefits that ECO offers.
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
Vote 1 http://cc.borland.com/codecentral/ccweb.exe/listing?id=21489 :-)
Now supports Google Groups searching with Dyna-extend(tm) technology!
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"I am so smart, I am so smart, s-m-r-t ." - Homer Simpson
Dejan Stanič
> Is there a future for _anyone_ in .NET?
Now, here's a good question.
I hate this ".NET comes first" attitude of Borland. So what (even) if
.NET is here to stay?
MS has clearly shown itself what type of applications are to be written
in .NET. Also, VB is no more: there is VB.NET for this doing that kind
of stuff. OTOH, C++ is being actively developed and supports 64-bit for
squeezing that extra space/performance for serious development.
Delphi blew socks of both VB and C++ when it came out. Unlike VB, it
offered serious development tool, which unlike C++ was true RAD.
Nowadays, future directions, it seems, is playing catch-up with VB.NET.
I don't like that.
LP,
Dejan
Kristofer Skaug
<...> knowing Microsoft from past experience It's
> only a matter of time until their marketing machine rolls out the the
> next technology to save us all and .NET slowly fades into the sunset.
Correction to that, I think .NET usage (except for legacy) will evaporate
almost instantly at the moment Microsoft rolls out the Next Great Stuff.
The same suckers who've fallen for the .NET.Hype ("you've
gotta-Gotta-GOTTA switch NOW, because your competitors [silly buggers,
hehe] already have!") will surely fall for the next wave of hype as well.
Only their losses next time will be much bigger than for the Win32/.NET
watershed: just a few years' worth of revenues for their .NET
investments, in a market that is completely unexcited about that "sooooo
turn-of-the-century" fad term.
--
Kristofer
Mike Mader
news:42e0...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Our company is starting to focus on Java more than anything. Especially
because of the strong support for Java from Oracle.
Thanks,
mike
Eric Grange
chips, that could make things very interesting.
http://www.arm.com/products/solutions/Jazelle.html
Eric
Kris Golko
I don't think I've got it!
Max
> Your opinion please
>
>
Mike Margerum
every app you are running right now? when 2 gigs is commonplace then
everything will be written in .net
Wayne Niddery [TeamB]
Short-term only.
--
Wayne Niddery - Logic Fundamentals, Inc. (www.logicfundamentals.com)
RADBooks: http://www.logicfundamentals.com/RADBooks.html
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million
typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare.
Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." - Robert
Wilensky
Kostya
> chips, that could make things very interesting.
>
> http://www.arm.com/products/solutions/Jazelle.html
They've been doing those "Java on the chip" attempts
for years. It is a very niche marked and never made
a splash.
Kostya
Kostya
The only thing safe for long term is
MS VC++
Kostya
Eric Grange
> for years. It is a very niche marked and never made
> a splash.
Seeing how Java is picking up steam in the cellphones for games, I
expect it to spread. First time I heard from Jazelle was while browsing
mobile phone specs while looking for a replacement phone, was kinda
surprised to see Java 2 and 3D acceleration coming to the top of the
feature lists.
Eric
Chris Uzdavinis
That's nonsense. The moment MS decides it's in their best interest to
discontinue a product, customers will have no say in the matter.
Consider Visual Basic 6 for a clear demonstration of MS abandoning a
huge customer base of developers. Nothing prevents that from
happening again.
--
Chris (TeamB);
Didier Largange
> Without meaning to trivialise the products you mentioned, ECO is so
> much more than a mere OPF. The object persistence capabilities are just
> one of many frameworks and benefits that ECO offers.
>
A detailed comparison chart would be very welcome!
Didier
Eric Grange
> discontinue a product, customers will have no say in the matter.
And they proved it by already having introduced APIs that .Net 1.1
cannot access.
Eric
Steve Heights put an AT here this is a DOT
>> MS VC++
>
> That's nonsense. The moment MS decides it's in their best interest
> to
> discontinue a product, customers will have no say in the matter.
> Consider Visual Basic 6 for a clear demonstration of MS abandoning a
> huge customer base of developers. Nothing prevents that from
> happening again.
I think the idea is that native C++ is the language MS uses to develop
their own main-applications such as Office etc. So as long as they do
that (and don't port it to .NEt or whatever may come thereafter), they
can't discontinue supporting it. Of course, in the long run, they can
change just about anything and nothing is save from them.
Steve
Kostya
Yeah. Their screen size is great for playing DOOM.
Kostya
Kostya
> their own main-applications such as Office etc.
Including their OS I'd assume.
Kostya
Kostya
> discontinue a product, customers will have no say in the matter.
Wake me up when they discontinue C++. We only have 20 years to wait <g>
Kostya
marc hoffman
> Can you imagine how much memory you would need to load a .net vm for every
> app you are running right now?
Apparently neither can you.
Andre Kaufmann
Not more than all the applications compiled to static runtime libraries
and using up to 20 dll's also compiled to the same static runtime
libraries. Therefore using not a shared dll, but the same code multiple
times.
Multiple .NET applications may all run in the same application domain
(the same process) with the same .NET runtime. Which is AFAIK the case
in ASP.NET.
And if i compare a simple application (only a single window no controls)
compiled with a free c++ compiler ( 1 MB ) with the comparable .NET
application (0.040 MB) i think the VM has plenty of memory left.
Andre
Kyle A. Miller
> I hope so if Microsoft plans on releasing new versions of their Office
> suite.
I believe there will be an all (or 99%) .NET version of Office some time
after Longhorn is delivered, when .NET market penetration breaks 50%. (I
made up the 50% number. I am sure Microsoft has their own internal
number and predictions.)
Max
As long as Microsoft OSes are not written in .Net, I stay on WinAPI ...
be cool ... be cool ...
Robert Love
> Your opinion please
Yes.
1. Microsoft Produced DOS and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland and
other competition succeeded.
2. Microsoft Produced WIN16 and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
and other competition succeeded.
3. Microsoft Produced WIN32 and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
and other competition succeeded.
4. Microsoft Produced .NET and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
and other competition will succeed.
--
Robert Love
Blog: http://peakxml.com
Robert Love
> hehe, you convert :-)
I had to two different projects and now I am total covert as well.
The time reduction in development is worth every penny of the higher
price to get it. Listening to parts of 24hrs again I heard over time
they will be looking bringing parts of ECO to lower SKUs, this can only
be good news for Delphi.
DS
> Kostya <thanks@but_no_thanks.com> writes:
>>The only thing safe for long term is
>>MS VC++
> That's nonsense. The moment MS decides it's in their best interest to
*Even MS* cannot discontinue C++.
LP,
Dejan
![Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWU6JIYTx6kJCxK1P9qy-0IkTLb3QUOOaGRszn1aPNSjVyUm9M=s40-c)
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Nikos wrote:
> > Your opinion please
>
> Is there a future for anyone in .NET?
Yes.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"The average person thinks he isn't." -- Father Larry Lorenzoni
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
> > They can't "discontinue C++" but they can discontinue MSVC++. This
> > seems unlikely, but so did discontinuing VB6, and they did that, so
> > what do I know....
>
> Sure, but they must have something to provide infrastructure to their
> "money-making" offerings (which VB wasn't).
That isn't true. MS *did* produce software with VB6. That's part of
the reason I was so surprised that they killed it.
> Trivially speaking, they can hardly sell new Windows version if there
> aren't any printer drivers supporting it, now can they?
They can't, but it doesn't follow that they have to sell a C++
compiler.
Like I said, though, I don't think this is likely at all -- it's just
that stuff I thought was unlikely has happened in the past.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
How to ask questions the smart way:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
They can't "discontinue C++" but they can discontinue MSVC++. This
seems unlikely, but so did discontinuing VB6, and they did that, so
what do I know....
-Craig
DS
> They can't "discontinue C++" but they can discontinue MSVC++. This
> seems unlikely, but so did discontinuing VB6, and they did that, so
> what do I know....
Sure, but they *must* have something to provide infrastructure to their
"money-making" offerings (which VB wasn't). Trivially speaking, they can
hardly sell new Windows version if there aren't any printer drivers
supporting it, now can they?
LP,
Dejan
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Your opinion please
Yes.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"I can write better than anybody who can write faster, and I can write
faster than anybody who can write better."
- A. J. Liebling (1904-1963)
Robert Love
> Nikos wrote:
> > Your opinion please
>
> Is there a future for anyone in .NET?
Yes.
I am not a 100% convert to .NET yet when it comes to Windows GUI apps.
I am a 100% covert to .NET when it comes to Web Applications (ASP.NET)
I slowly realizing I want to use the class libraries found .NET in my
Windows GUI apps. Over time, this I suspect will eventually lead to me
converting Windows GUI apps to .NET as well.
Adam Roslon
> Not on desktop PC.
>
Exactly .NET has it's place in the enterprise if you don't like java but
I couldn't and still don't see it's use for desktop apps period.
Adam Roslon
says...
> The only thing safe for long term is
> MS VC++
>
>
>
We still have customers who use DOS apps we wrote in Turbo C and has not
desire to upgrade. I've tried talking them into it upgrading during the
Y2K propaganda campaign but they like the system as is.
Andre Kaufmann
AFAIK they tried to implement something like a compatibility switch, so
that you should be able to compile VB6 projects in a compatible language
mode directly in the VB.NET IDE. But the underlying technology (old
forms package, COM) has been too different and not all .NET features
could be used from VB6.
Then the decision was made to break compatibility and once this decision
was made an avalanche has been triggered and many breaking changes have
been introduced.
But i doubt that it was purely "MS best interest" to discontinue VB6,
better said to make it incompatible. What interest ?
I wouldn´t have expected that huge changes in VB6, but tell me a large
software company which hasn´t abandoned a product out of the blue.
Andre
DS
> That isn't true. MS *did* produce software with VB6. That's part of
> the reason I was so surprised that they killed it.
Really?
Could you elaborate...?
LP,
Dejan
Adam Roslon
says...
> Wake me up when they discontinue C++. We only have 20 years to wait <g>
>
>
discontinued about 10 years ago
DS
> Wasn't computer programming in general supposed to be obsolete and
> discontinued about 10 years ago
Wasn't it supposed that we'll all be driving funky looking electro-cars
and dressing in weird looking latex clothing(*) whilst defending
ourselves from invaders from another galaxy? <G>
LP,
Dejan
(*)
Please, don't start discussing this one, eh? <VBG>
Adam Roslon
rober...@gmail.com says...
> Yes.
> I am not a 100% convert to .NET yet when it comes to Windows GUI apps.
> I am a 100% covert to .NET when it comes to Web Applications (ASP.NET)
>
>
>
I can see .NET for web applications but for our line of work which is
mainly real-time industrial machine vision and automation control
systems. For us currently it's not an option and from what I've been
told at several seminars by Microsoft reps it never will be, there is
just too much overhead for it to be real-time without the use of third
party $$$ Kernel access add-ons only to get us back to where we are
right now without it.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
> > That isn't true. MS did produce software with VB6. That's part of
> > the reason I was so surprised that they killed it.
>
> Really?
> Could you elaborate...?
I don't recall, but I remember hearing about it. There wasn't a lot,
but I think it did exist. IIRC it was mostly helper apps included with
large products.
--
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
Bob Dawson
>
> As long as Microsoft OSes are not written in .Net, I stay
> on WinAPI ...
odd sentiment. No MS OS is written on the Win32 API.
bobD
David Clegg
> A detailed comparison chart would be very welcome!
I can't offer that, as I don't know the other products at all, and
probably aren't knowledgeable enough on ECO to do it justice. But below
are some of the benefits and services offered by ECO :-
- UML representation of your model, with full support to bring this UML
representation to life at run-time.
- IPersistenceService for persisting your model
- IDirtyListService for querying changed entities in your model
- IUndoService for providing multi-level transactional support
- Design-time and run-time OCL evaluation support.
- IAutoContainer and IAutoContainerFactory interfaces to allow for
custom edit dialogs to be invoked without code.
- Synchronization of multiple ECOSpaces to make multi-user support
easier.
- IVersionService for Object versioning.
- Full support for WinForms databinding, including currency managers.
- Extensions to WinForms components to allow common ECO functionality
to be executed without writing code.
- Support to be able to query the Uml elements of your model at
run-time.
- Ability to wrap existing database schemas.
- Subscription mechanism to allow you to monitor run-time changes to
elements in your model.
I'm bound to have missed out some features, but this should at least
help compare ECO to an OPF. And be sure to check out Peter Morris's
excellent "What is ECO anyway?" article on BDN
http://bdn.borland.com/article/0,1410,33259,00.html
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
Vote 1 http://cc.borland.com/codecentral/ccweb.exe/listing?id=21489 :-)
Now supports Google Groups searching with Dyna-extend(tm) technology!
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen." - Homer
Simpson
David Clegg
> Java is now getting hardware support in the form of Java-accelerating
> chips, that could make things very interesting.
And the TinyCLR is doing similar things for .NET too
http://dotnet.sys-con.com/read/84123.htm
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
Vote 1 http://cc.borland.com/codecentral/ccweb.exe/listing?id=21489 :-)
Now supports Google Groups searching with Dyna-extend(tm) technology!
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"If the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, its that girls
should stick to girl's sports, such as hot oil wrestling foxy boxy and
such and such" - Homer Simpson
David Clegg
> 1. Microsoft Produced DOS and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
> and other competition succeeded.
> 2. Microsoft Produced WIN16 and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
> and other competition succeeded.
> 3. Microsoft Produced WIN32 and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
> and other competition succeeded.
> 4. Microsoft Produced .NET and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
> and other competition will succeed.
Heh! This is a good point.
It still tickles me to read developers getting all uptight about
targeting this proprietary MS only .NET technology. "OMG! Vendor lock
in! I'm sticking to Win32, thank you very much!" :-)
Borland has always been very good at targetting MS technologies. Why
should .NET be any different?
--
Cheers,
David Clegg
dcl...@gmail.com
Vote 1 http://cc.borland.com/codecentral/ccweb.exe/listing?id=21489 :-)
Now supports Google Groups searching with Dyna-extend(tm) technology!
QualityCentral. The best way to bug Borland about bugs.
http://qc.borland.com
"Marge, your paintings look like the things they look like." - Homer
Simpson.
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> "OMG! Vendor lock in! I'm sticking to Win32, thank you very much!" :-)
LOL!
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"Physics is not a religion. If it were, we'd have a much easier time
raising money." -- Leon Lenderman
Roger Lascelles
news:42e1540a$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> odd sentiment. No MS OS is written on the Win32 API.
It is argued that the Win32 API could be written on top of any OS, but I
don't think this is completely true. The API exposes a method of callback
functions, address management, window and resource management which reflect
what is really going on inside windows. For example, the handles available
via the API are the same binary numbers used inside the OS.
So I agree that the OS is not written in the Win32 API - but the Win32 API
is written for and into the OS. That very closeness is the reason Windows
was possible at all on the slow hardware - I remember running Windows 95 on
a 486 !
Perhaps that is why emulators like WINE are good, but not perfect. .NET on
the other hand, takes an OS independent viewpoint and should be more
portable.
Roger
Will DeWitt Jr.
> They've been doing those "Java on the chip" attempts
> for years. It is a very niche marked and never made
> a splash.
Sure, but what about Intel's Rockton Technology (RT) --
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=24781
"RT is basically managed code, Java and .NET, acceleration in mostly
hardware, with some software assist too. On the hardware level, it is
basically a new instruction set like MMX or SSE, specifically designed
to help those things that Java does a lot. Like VT[1], the goal is to
assist software by lessening the cost of common things, and adding a
few new capabilities."
[1]: VT = Vanderpool Technology; Intel's virtualization instructions.
----------
This sounds like a reasonable attempt to help improve the performance
of bytecode (non-native) executables. It's supposed to accelerate .NET
and Java. (Read the article for more details/speculation). Not quite
java-on-a-chip (or .net-on-a-chip) but it should/could help
desktop/server performance.
Will
--
Want native support in Delphi for AMD64/EM64T? Vote here--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> "OMG! Vendor lock in! I'm sticking to Win32, thank you
> very much!"
LOL!
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> > Is there a future for anyone in .NET?
>
> Is there a future for anyone outside .NET?
Is there a doctor in the house?
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Alvaro GP
> > Is there a future for anyone in .NET?
>
> Yes.
Can you predict the future?
Richard Grossman
> Some of these are really very interesting (i.e. nhibernate - a .net porting
> of the java ORM Hibernate) Free and Open Source.
Deklarit looks interesting, too.
--
"Darmok and Jalad, at Tenagra"
Eric Grange
You asked for it, Carmack obliges ;)
http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/johnc/Recent%20Updates
Eric
Eric Grange
> the reason I was so surprised that they killed it.
Urban myth?
VBA they used and still use for sure, but they didn't axe VBA.
Eric
Eric Grange
> and other competition will succeed.
Goes a little further though, previously Borland had compilers,
libraries and dev tools of their own, since D8, they have only a
precompiler, no new general purpose libraries and their dev tools
rely on packaging MS libraries and dev tools rather than selling
their own competitive general purpose libraries/dev tools.
The added value in the .Net world ranges from negligible (nothing new)
to negative (can't use some VS .Net component wizards, stability issues,
risks of SPs breaking your IDE ala D8) if you don't absolutely need ECO
or don't have existing Delphi code.
Eric
Robert Love
> > 4. Microsoft Produced .NET and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
> > and other competition will succeed.
>
> Goes a little further though, previously Borland had compilers,
> libraries and dev tools of their own, since D8, they have only a
> precompiler, no new general purpose libraries and their dev tools
> rely on packaging MS libraries and dev tools rather than selling
> their own competitive general purpose libraries/dev tools.
Wow, I am very impressed by your spin factor... Maybe you should go
into politics.
1. Borland has Compilers C++, Delphi Win32 and Delphi .NET nothing
has changed. Your statement is incorrect.
2. You may think that the .Net compiler is only a "Precompiler" and
Although I don't agree with you, you have neglected the fact that
borland has a Win32 Delphi compiler, that had several new features
added to it in the last verison.
3. Delphi has always dependancies on Microsoft Libraries? specifically
the Windows API! With .NET borland now provides many more libraries we
can use, before we had to convert C++ headers, now we get direct
support with no coversion work required.
> The added value in the .Net world ranges from negligible (nothing new)
> to negative
The following I now have "NEW" that I did not have before .NET
1. Better Xml Support.
2. ASP.NET (Faster Web Application Development)
3. ECO
4. Better Crypto Libraries
5. IEnumerable (foreach/for in)
6. Ability to use other libraries written in other languages as if
they were written in Delphi... i.e. I don't have to convert anything!
I know I could go on, but I really don't see the point.
Dave Moore
"DS" <D...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:42e1528c$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Adam Roslon wrote:
>> Wasn't computer programming in general supposed to be obsolete and
>> discontinued about 10 years ago
>
> Wasn't it supposed that we'll all be driving funky looking electro-cars
> and dressing in weird looking latex clothing(*) whilst defending ourselves
> from invaders from another galaxy? <G>
>
> LP,
> Dejan
Don't forget the rocket-packs! We were all meant to have rocket-packs...
*sobs* - I miss my rocket-pack...
>
> (*)
> Please, don't start discussing this one, eh? <VBG>
Not in this newsgroup anyway....but borland.public.fetish perhaps? ;-)
Best,
Dave
>
>
>
>
>
>
Eric Grange
> has changed. Your statement is incorrect.
I was referring to .Net only, as, unless you missed, it is the subject
of this thread.
The Delphi .Net compiler is just a precompiler in the grand scheme of
things, because it then relies on another compiler to get anything
executed, or optimized.
> 2. You may think that the .Net compiler is only a "Precompiler" and
> Although I don't agree with you, you have neglected the fact that
> borland has a Win32 Delphi compiler, that had several new features
> added to it in the last verison.
Out of the thread subject, and 32bit is old technology anyway. And it's
now so thoroughly behind competing native 32 bits compilers that only
people with much existing Delphi code and ASM knowledge can use it as a
competitive product in the performance field.
For instance MMX and SSE were introduced aeons ago and still aren't
supported by the language, only through BASM can you access them, and
the codegen is still using 486/early Pentium patterns.
Sorry, but the compiler isn't that competitive anymore, even with the
latest improvements, it can't hold a candle to MSVC or Intel C++ f.i.
(and that's true for CPPB compiler true, which is actually a step behind
Delphi's compiler in terms of generated code efficiency).
> 3. Delphi has always dependancies on Microsoft Libraries?
Dependances yes, but there were Delphi libraries, the RTL, the VCL,
which were superior to MS's own offerings (VB's libraries, MFCs...).
With D.Net you get MS libraries from end to end, including the form
designers, with no added Borland libraries (except ECO) and a variety of
things that you can't accomplish or have stability issues.
> With .NET borland now provides many more libraries we can use
Not Borland, MS provides them. They are the ones that control
directions, implementations, design decision, documentation,
compatibility (or lack of).
Borland isn't even adaptating the documentation to Delphi, so all you
get are VB, C# and C++ exemples. Yes, they didn't adapt the Win32SDK
docs, but you could do without using the SDK... now try developping
Winforms applications without using MS docs. Good luck.
> The following I now have "NEW" that I did not have before .NET
>
> 1. Better Xml Support.
You could use MSXML directly in Delphi. Been using it for ages, there
were a variety of other 100% Delphi implementation, some still being a
lot more efficient or practical than what you have under .Net (which
personnally, I find rather primitive... like the "raw" tools we had a
few years ago).
> 2. ASP.NET (Faster Web Application Development)
Faster than what?
Besides, applies only to those doing web applications under IIS or
equivalent servers.
> 3. ECO
Niche library.
> 4. Better Crypto Libraries
Than what?
> 5. IEnumerable (foreach/for in)
Nice to have, but cosmetic and not earth shattering.
> 6. Ability to use other libraries written in other languages as if
> they were written in Delphi... i.e. I don't have to convert anything!
*If* you are accustomed to never getting the sources of the libraries
you use and sticking to binaries, and *if* you want to cope with
redistribution and patching issues arising from having a variety of DLL
in your distribution, and *if* you never have a bug in one of those
libraries (that will, by virtue of Murphy's Law, be written in some
exotic language few in your team master).
Using libraries is the easy part, the hard part is maintainance.
> I know I could go on, but I really don't see the point.
Me neither. If all the points you've listed are important to you, then
Visual Studio would fulfill your needs more cleanly, and remove an extra
proprietary layer to the MS compilers and libraries (which seem to be
what you actually crave for).
As far as ECO is concerned, odds are it will be available in VS someday.
Eric
Pete Goodwin
> Your opinion please
Perhaps the question should be split in two: "Is there a future for
Borland?", and "Is there a future for .NET?"
As for Borland's future in .NET, I'd say "beware!".
Pete
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> > 4. Microsoft Produced .NET and Dev Tools, Compilers, etc... Borland
> > and other competition will succeed.
>
> Goes a little further though, previously Borland had compilers,
> libraries and dev tools of their own, since D8, they have only a
> precompiler, no new general purpose libraries
Nonsense, they still have the Delphi/Win32 and C++ compilers, and the
same libraries and dev tools (and these have been extended). Most of them
can be found in D2005, and some will be added in what is currently called
DeXter (e.g. the C++ stuff). I see no need for NEW general purpose
libraries either, neither on Win32, nor on .NET. On .NET, instead of
using awkward C-based APIs, you can now use OO-based classes and methods
to achieve most of that.
And well, calling Delphi for .NET a precompiler is a very personal way of
yours to see a fully fledged compiler, which simply compiles to virtual
machine code, instead of to native machine code. It is like calling
Comeau's C++ compiler (one of the best and most conformant around) a
precompiler, since it produces C source code which can be compiled with
any commercial or free compiler.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"Hearing nuns' confessions is like being stoned to death with popcorn."
-- Fulton Sheen.
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> 2. You may think that the .Net compiler is only a "Precompiler" and
> Although I don't agree with you, you have neglected the fact that
> borland has a Win32 Delphi compiler, that had several new features
> added to it in the last verison.
Indeed:
http://blogs.teamb.com/rudyvelthuis/archive/2005/05/11/4270.aspx
http://blogs.teamb.com/rudyvelthuis/archive/2005/05/13/4311.aspx
Note that these changes are available for both .NET and Win32.
Anyway, it is nonsense to call every .NET compiler, or Java, a
"precompiler". The only difference is that instead of compiling to native
code, they compile to virtual code.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"UNIX is simple. It just takes a genius to understand its simplicity."
-- Dennis Ritchie
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> > 1. Borland has Compilers C++, Delphi Win32 and Delphi .NET nothing
> > has changed. Your statement is incorrect.
>
> I was referring to .Net only, as, unless you missed, it is the subject
> of this thread.
>
> The Delphi .Net compiler is just a precompiler in the grand scheme of
> things, because it then relies on another compiler to get anything
> executed, or optimized.
Yeah, well, if you put it like that, so is every other .NET compiler, and
so is Java, or Comeau C++. These are fully fledged compilers, which just
happen to compile to intermediate code, instead of native code.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://velthuis.homepage.t-online.de
"I'm always amazed to hear of air crash victims so badly mutilated
that they have to be identified by their dental records. What I can't
understand is, if they don't know who you are, how do they know who
your dentist is?" -- Paul Merton.
Sergio Sette
Eric,
>
> Dependances yes, but there were Delphi libraries, the RTL, the VCL, which
> were superior to MS's own offerings (VB's libraries, MFCs...).
> With D.Net you get MS libraries from end to end, including the form
> designers, with no added Borland libraries (except ECO) and a variety of
> things that you can't accomplish or have stability issues.
>
I fully agree with your point of view.
Best Regards
Sergio Sette
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> > That isn't true. MS did produce software with VB6. That's part of
> > the reason I was so surprised that they killed it.
>
> Urban myth?
I don't think so. For example:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/22/microsoft_spyware_vb6/
Granted, they bought this from another company, but that's true of
*lots* of MS software.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Everything You Need to Know About InterBase Character Sets:
http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/articles/403.aspx
Lurkio
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/22/microsoft_spyware_vb6/
>
Well, that was *the* one and only famous example :-)
I think the original point up the thread was more along
the lines of what Office, Visual Studio, etc have been
developed with. Microsoft /need/ 64-bit/128-bit/XXX-bit
C/C++ as time progresses because that is what most of the
OS infrastructure is written with as well as their huge
application cash cows. Any notions of how/why/when they
would go about replacing such fundamental pillars of
their internal development infrastructure are simply not
on the cards for the foreseeable future / ever.
The ease with which "classic" VB was discarded does not
give the impression of much reliance on (or affection for)
it by M$ internally. FWIW, I don't think C# or .Net will
be abandoned in the way VB was but IMO the central pillars
of what they themselves use will remain C/C++, especially
given the flexibility of C++/CLI.
As a separate note, for me one of Delphi's selling points in
this context has always been that it's developers eat their
own dog food...it helps give the impression that the people
working on the tool are seeing the same things you are as
opposed to the VB team and its history of changing things
from on high, often against the wishes of their user base.
These aren't trivial issues to the VB folk - their perspective
(honed by experience) has been that if they (M$) don't use
it themselves, they can bin it with (virtual) impunity.
Eric Grange
> so is Java, or Comeau C++.
AFAIK Java compilers never made the pretense some here are trying to
make about .Net compilers, it has always been clear to everyone involved
that their job was in simplifying the job of the actual interpretor or
JIT compiler by presenting it with something not CPU-oriented, but more
machine-oriented than source code.
> These are fully fledged compilers,
Nope, not "fully fledged". They are part of a compiler chain, and can't
accomplish anything on their own, and thus in no way are "fully fledged"
(or by that metric a C preprocessor would be a compiler, hey it just
happens to compile to source code).
> which just happen to compile to intermediate code, instead of native
code.
Which is a world of difference: intermediate code still needs a lot of
work to be executable, and arguably, *most* of the work to get things
running actually remains to be done at that point.
Eric
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
> >
> > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/22/microsoft_spyware_vb6/
>
> Well, that was the one and only famous example :-)
On what basis do you assert this?
I'm curious because people occasionally assert that MS doesn't use
.NET in Office or SQL Server, and that isn't true. Likewise, it's
clearly incorrect to say that MS doesn't use VB6 in their products at
all. So whenever I see folks asserting what MS uses internally I want
to know the source.
I also think that forever is a long time -- and so is "the forseeable
future" -- and I certainly won't be predicting what tools MS will be
using on 128 bit hardware!
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
How to ask questions the smart way:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
Eric Grange
None of these are leading edge, but mostly legacy to support existing code.
Except for VCL, you'll have trouble convincing any C++ programmer to use
Borland C++ anymore.
> I see no need for NEW general purpose libraries either, neither on Win32,
> nor on .NET.
So you're throwing the towel and considering things are perfect and
couldn't possibly be improved in any significant way?
How many times did we heard throughout history that a technology had
reached its pinnacle and nothing help would/could be needed anymore?
This is probably where the difference between actual innovation and
maketing gimmicks is, innovation happens where things are deemed
"complete", gimmicks happens where everyone thinks things are going.
> And well, calling Delphi for .NET a precompiler is a very personal way of
> yours to see a fully fledged compiler [...]
Fully-fledged, pfah! This thing probably doesn't even accomplish half
the work required to get things to run, and probably represents less
than 10% of the code that is involved in getting them to run native.
Not fully-fledged by a long stretch, more like a small plugin in a
compiler toolchain, and not very different in scope than what a C
preprocessor is to a C compiler toolchain.
Eric
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> > The Delphi .Net compiler is just a precompiler in the grand scheme
> > of things, because it then relies on another compiler to get
> > anything executed, or optimized.
>
> Yeah, well, if you put it like that, so is every other .NET compiler,
> and so is Java, or Comeau C++.
Comeau even more so. And add Eiffel to the list as well. Of course
"real programmers" use hex editors anyway.
These arguments remind me of when Windows was new and wasn't a "real"
OS. That didn't change the fact that DOS was going the steam train. It
took a few years, yes, but the writing was on the wall from the
earliest days.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Kostya wrote in <42e1177f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com>:
>
> > They've been doing those "Java on the chip" attempts
> > for years. It is a very niche marked and never made
> > a splash.
>
> Sure, but what about Intel's Rockton Technology (RT) --
Yes, and also Transmeta's code morphing, which will probably be up for
sale soon if it hasn't sold already.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
All the great TeamB service you've come to expect plus (New!)
Irish Tin Whistle tips: http://learningtowhistle.blogspot.com
Eric Grange
> sale soon if it hasn't sold already.
However Transmeta have always been having serious performance issues
with their chips, they're having a hard time coming anywhere near Via's
C3 performance f.i., and have no real hope of ever touching AMD or
Intel's offerings.
Add to that the very large dies of Transmeta's chips (an Efficeon f.i.
is larger than a Prescott or AXP) and it becomes doubtful their
technology will ever gather much steam.
I'm more confident about ARM/Intel/AMD's capabilities.
Eric
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> However Transmeta have always been having serious performance issues
> with their chips, they're having a hard time coming anywhere near
> Via's C3 performance f.i., and have no real hope of ever touching AMD
> or Intel's offerings.
AFAICR high performance was never really their (Transmeta's) primary
goal. They were aiming for super-low power consumption and the ability
to run multiple platforms on a single chip. I found it relevant as I
think the PDA space will be a significant market for .NET apps (my
company is about to release one, for example).
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Please read and follow Borland's rules for the user of their
news server: http://info.borland.com/newsgroups/guide.html
Eric Grange
> .NET in Office or SQL Server, and that isn't true.
As far as Office 2k3 goes, the .Net parts are optional, and it works
just fine without .Net installed. IIRC the .Net parts in Office are for
custom development and come in complement to the ActiveX/OLE stuff.
Eric
Lurkio
> Lurkio wrote:
>
>>Craig Stuntz [TeamB] wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/22/microsoft_spyware_vb6/
>>
>>Well, that was the one and only famous example :-)
>
> On what basis do you assert this?
Well, do you have any better examples yourself? The article
you linked to clearly found it humourous that the thing was
written with VB6...
<quote>
"This whole issue begs the question," writes Carey, "why is
Microsoft using an unsupported development environment against
their own guidelines? Just another case of' 'Do what I say, not
what I do'...
</quote>
> I'm curious because people occasionally assert that MS doesn't use
> .NET in Office or SQL Server, and that isn't true.
Well, good thing *I* never said that then :-)
> Likewise, it's clearly incorrect to say that MS doesn't use VB6 in
> their products at all. So whenever I see folks asserting what MS uses
> internally I want to know the source.
Again, do you have any better examples of them actually using VB 6
for applications that they've given to the outside world?
I've picked up titbits in various places about what they use as they're
development platform(s) - ex/current employee blogs are a good source for
gleaning that kind of info. For example, Joel Spolsky has written some
interesting stuff from his days on the Excel team (they rolled their own
C compiler). I certainly couldn't claim to be able to detail what every M$
development team uses (and neither can you) but I think I am on safe ground
in speculating that the vast bulk of the main product lines are written in
C/C++. (Again, I'm still not denying the use of C# or .Net in the mix)
IMO, if they ever used "classic" VB for /anything/, it would have been for
"disposable" internal apps, appropriate given the way they disposed of VB... :-P
> I also think that forever is a long time -- and so is "the forseeable
> future" -- and I certainly won't be predicting what tools MS will be
> using on 128 bit hardware!
What I was driving at was that it would take a /monumental/ effort (and
direction change) to move from where they are to some future non-C/C++
dominant position...and given their continued ongoing development of C++
as the most flexible .Net tool in their armoury (via both its 64-bit native
capabilities and its C++/CLI native/.Net integration) I frankly don't see
any evidence of them even beginning to move in such a direction. Though I
will admit that forever is, in fact, a long time :-)
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> IIRC the .Net parts in Office are for custom development and come in
> complement to the ActiveX/OLE stuff.
No, Outlook's Business Contact Manager and SharePoint Portal Server
2003 are both written in managed code. So are some of the support apps
for Small Business Server. Exchange 2003 and Outlook Mobile Access both
use managed code for their mobile access features.
Eric Grange
I remember them pumping up benchmarks in their early days... but then
the gap with AMD & Intel widened enormously.
> They were aiming for super-low power consumption and the ability
> to run multiple platforms on a single chip. I found it relevant as I
> think the PDA space will be a significant market for .NET apps (my
> company is about to release one, for example).
Consumption-wise, Transmeta has been resorting to throttling lately to
achieve its power rating figures. I can undervolt and throttle my
centrino and it will consume less than 7W too, or I can use an AMD Geode
NX (5...@1.1W, no throttling, gives a run to Efficeon 1GHz)
Their "multiple platforms on a chip" hasn't proving so hot either, on
dedicated systems they've consistently been beaten by ARM and Intel
solutions (non-generic platform proved cheaper to produce and maintain,
less transistors, smaller dies).
Where it would have been interesting was if they were to support
virtualization like Vanderpool/Pacifica, but they announced they have no
plans to (they may no longer have enough staff though).
Eric
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> Well, do you have any better examples yourself? The article
> you linked to clearly found it humourous that the thing was
> written with VB6...
Yeah, I really distrust Dependency Walker. I've seen folks elsewhere
confirm the same results. Google if you care to.
> Again, do you have any better examples of them actually using VB 6
> for applications that they've given to the outside world?
What do you mean "better?" That *is* an example. If you'd like to
prove it incorrect then look at the imports yourself with the PE viewer
of your choice. But I don't expect you to succeed in doing this.
-Craig
--
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
Brian Moelk
> things, because it then relies on another compiler to get anything
> executed, or optimized.
I find it funny that what people take exception to is this statement, which
is the most controversial one IMO. The other points you make are very
important as well, it would be nice to see someone address those. If one
wishes to allude to politics, picking on a part of the whole is a common
diversionary tactic employed, so I ask, who is spinning what?
> Out of the thread subject, and 32bit is old technology anyway. And it's
> now so thoroughly behind competing native 32 bits compilers that only
> people with much existing Delphi code and ASM knowledge can use it as a
> competitive product in the performance field.
> For instance MMX and SSE were introduced aeons ago and still aren't
> supported by the language, only through BASM can you access them, and
> the codegen is still using 486/early Pentium patterns.
>
> Sorry, but the compiler isn't that competitive anymore, even with the
> latest improvements, it can't hold a candle to MSVC or Intel C++ f.i.
> (and that's true for CPPB compiler true, which is actually a step behind
> Delphi's compiler in terms of generated code efficiency).
I agree; and I also agree that this is out of the thread subject.
> > 3. Delphi has always dependancies on Microsoft Libraries?
>
> Dependances yes, but there were Delphi libraries, the RTL, the VCL,
> which were superior to MS's own offerings (VB's libraries, MFCs...).
> With D.Net you get MS libraries from end to end, including the form
> designers, with no added Borland libraries (except ECO) and a variety of
> things that you can't accomplish or have stability issues.
Bingo. What's important here is to recognize the elements of a competitive
strategy. In general, you must either compete on cost or compete on feature
differentiation (there is a vertical market strategy as well, but that's not
really Borland's game).
In general, most non-vertical software competitive strategy is based on
differentiation. I don't think Borland can get into a price battle with MS.
In the past, Borland has been able to deliver superior technology. So the
real important thing is to look at what they are offering vis-a-vis their
main competitor MS.
> > The following I now have "NEW" that I did not have before .NET
> >
> > 1. Better Xml Support.
>
> You could use MSXML directly in Delphi. Been using it for ages, there
> were a variety of other 100% Delphi implementation, some still being a
> lot more efficient or practical than what you have under .Net (which
> personnally, I find rather primitive... like the "raw" tools we had a
> few years ago).
I don't find much lacking using MSXML from Delphi Win32, although I am not
completely familiar with dotNET's XML support. But the main issue here is
what Borland adds to dotNET's XML support since these things are available
from VS.NET.
> > 2. ASP.NET (Faster Web Application Development)
>
> Faster than what?
> Besides, applies only to those doing web applications under IIS or
> equivalent servers.
IMO Intraweb is faster than ASP.NET for certain things, however Intraweb for
.NET supports VS.NET too. And again, this is irrelevant since ASP.NET is
also offered from VS.NET.
> > 3. ECO
>
> Niche library.
This is the only truly distinctive feature that offers a competitive
advantage. And I would agree with Eric in this case, it is a niche
*library* at this point in time. It's also in a very competitive space as
there are many third party and open source products that offer similar
things (80% functionality of ECO).
> > 4. Better Crypto Libraries
>
> Than what?
Again, whatever those crypto libraries Robert is refering to, I presume they
are available in VS.NET as well.
> > 5. IEnumerable (foreach/for in)
>
> Nice to have, but cosmetic and not earth shattering.
Agreed.
> > 6. Ability to use other libraries written in other languages as if
> > they were written in Delphi... i.e. I don't have to convert anything!
But that is only from a customer retention perspective. In addition, this
isn't something *Borland* has added to the mix. IOW, I can choose Chrome
and get the same benefit.
> *If* you are accustomed to never getting the sources of the libraries
> you use and sticking to binaries, and *if* you want to cope with
> redistribution and patching issues arising from having a variety of DLL
> in your distribution, and *if* you never have a bug in one of those
> libraries (that will, by virtue of Murphy's Law, be written in some
> exotic language few in your team master).
> Using libraries is the easy part, the hard part is maintainance.
I agree with that assessment. There are definitely tradeoffs here to using
an all-in-one kind of framework.
> > I know I could go on, but I really don't see the point.
>
> Me neither. If all the points you've listed are important to you, then
> Visual Studio would fulfill your needs more cleanly, and remove an extra
> proprietary layer to the MS compilers and libraries (which seem to be
> what you actually crave for).
And this is the *key* point that Borland has to address if they want to be
competitive. What makes Borlands products special or unique?
And since MS is the 500lb gorilla in the space, Borland has to be
*significantly* better. We all know how hard it was to get the PHB support
even when Delphi completely crushed VB technically.
> As far as ECO is concerned, odds are it will be available in VS someday.
Perhaps, we'll see. At the end of the day, that may be all they have left
in the dotNET space.
--
Brian Moelk
bmo...@NObrainendeavorSPAM.FORcomME
http://www.brainendeavor.com
Eric Grange
> 2003 are both written in managed code.
What 'no'?
These two aren't Office, one is an Office addon, the other is so loosely
related it's not even funny. Next you'll be placing Exchange and IIS in
your list.
> So are some of the support apps for Small Business Server.
SBS is not Office.
And btw, Back Office <> Office too.
> Exchange 2003 and Outlook Mobile Access both
> use managed code for their mobile access features.
Oh, it happened!
There seems to be much confusion about what Office is, in a few
sentences you've managed to mix it up with an Office add-on, server
software, OS package, mail serving software and a web service.
Eric
Lurkio
> Lurkio wrote:
>
>>Well, do you have any better examples yourself? The article
>>you linked to clearly found it humourous that the thing was
>>written with VB6...
>
> Yeah, I really distrust Dependency Walker. I've seen folks elsewhere
> confirm the same results. Google if you care to.
????
The anti-spyware application was well known to be a VB 6 application.
I never doubted your word. I knew it was VB 6 already. Most folk knew
that already. That was where the comedy value of the article came in.
>>Again, do you have any better examples of them actually using VB 6
>>for applications that they've given to the outside world?
>
> What do you mean "better?" That *is* an example. If you'd like to
> prove it incorrect then look at the imports yourself with the PE viewer
> of your choice. But I don't expect you to succeed in doing this.
You missed the whole point of what I was saying. Reading back, I should have
said "more" instead of "better" as I didn't mean to denigrate your example.
Yes, it is a valid example of a VB 6 application released by Microsoft (not
actually written by them but why split hairs). The point that I was trying to
make is that it is a pretty darn /rare/ example of a VB-written application
released by Microsoft, doubly ironic given it being released just as "classic"
VB was being deprecated. A chance for all us Delphi folks to indulge in a bit
of "let's all laugh at M$" related banter :-)
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> You missed the whole point of what I was saying. Reading back, I
> should have said "more" instead of "better" as I didn't mean to
> denigrate your example.
Yes, that would have made a lot more sense. I don't know if there are
more. There might be, there might not. I'd be interested in seeing hard
evidence one way or the other.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] · Vertex Systems Corp. · Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> There seems to be much confusion about what Office is, in a few
> sentences you've managed to mix it up with an Office add-on, server
> software, OS package, mail serving software and a web service.
Sounds like my post confused you. I did not assert that SBS was
Office. I gave it as an example of an MS app which uses .NET features.
But you are on extremely shaky ground if you assert that, for example,
BCM is not part of office. Read the site for yourself:
http://www.microsoft.com/office/outlook/contactmanager/prodinfo/default.
mspx
Likewise, SharePoint Portal Server -- oops, MS tells me the correct
name is "Microsoft Office SharePoint Portal Server:
http://www.microsoft.com/sharepoint/overview.mspx
Asserting that something which doesn't ship in all SKUs can't be
considered part of the product is like saying that DB access isn't a
feature of Delphi for the same reason. I don't buy it.
As I've said before, it's easy to say that MS doesn't use .NET as a
development platform if you exclude the times when they do.
Robert Love
> > has changed. Your statement is incorrect.
>
> I was referring to .Net only, as, unless you missed, it is the
> subject of this thread.
>
> The Delphi .Net compiler is just a precompiler in the grand scheme of
> things, because it then relies on another compiler to get anything
> executed, or optimized.
Because of this, with a few changes we now how Delphi for .Net for the
Compact Framework. Delphi code is now able to run on mobile hand held
devices. Something we have never been able to do before.
>
> > 3. Delphi has always dependancies on Microsoft Libraries?
>
> Dependances yes, but there were Delphi libraries, the RTL, the VCL,
> which were superior to MS's own offerings (VB's libraries, MFCs...).
> With D.Net you get MS libraries from end to end, including the form
> designers, with no added Borland libraries (except ECO) and a variety
> of things that you can't accomplish or have stability issues.
The entire VCL is available in .NET as well. So adding the .NET
library and the VCL you have more the doubled the original libraries
available in the code.
> > With .NET borland now provides many more libraries we can use
>
> Not Borland, MS provides them. They are the ones that control
> directions, implementations, design decision, documentation,
> compatibility (or lack of).
So are you saying you don't trust microsoft and you need a solution to
run on Microsofts platform that does not depend on them?
> > 1. Better Xml Support.
>
> You could use MSXML directly in Delphi. Been using it for ages, there
> were a variety of other 100% Delphi implementation, some still being
> a lot more efficient or practical than what you have under .Net
> (which personnally, I find rather primitive... like the "raw" tools
> we had a few years ago).
Having done a ton of Xml Development, the MSXml Parser is an infant
compared to what is provided in the .NET framework. XmlReader is a
better way to read Large Xml Documents that SAX ever was.
> > 2. ASP.NET (Faster Web Application Development)
>
> Faster than what?
> Besides, applies only to those doing web applications under IIS or
> equivalent servers.
It is faster to develop in ASP.Net than it was in ISAPI and Webbroker,
are two borland provided options before.
If your writing using Delphi your targeting windows, if your targeting
windows then you have access to IIS. There are also commerical web
server product that support ASP.NET now. ASP.Net is not bound to IIS,
it is part of the framework. Any webserver can support ASP.NET by
using HttpRuntime.
> > 3. ECO
> Niche library.
I thought so too until I started using it. I now have hard time
thinking of writing applications with out it.
> > 4. Better Crypto Libraries
> Than what?
Anything that shipped with Delphi before... Wait, nothing did ship
before. Now I get System.Security.Cryptography which include support
for RSA, Rihndael, DES, TripleDES and this now ships in the product.
>
> > 5. IEnumerable (foreach/for in)
> Nice to have, but cosmetic and not earth shattering.
Although not earth sattering, incremental change never is. It is just
another way I can accomplish my work in a easier way. I could code
everything in ASM, but then i want my projects to finish.
> > 6. Ability to use other libraries written in other languages as if
> > they were written in Delphi... i.e. I don't have to convert
> > anything!
>
> If you are accustomed to never getting the sources of the libraries
> you use and sticking to binaries, and if you want to cope with
> redistribution and patching issues arising from having a variety of
> DLL in your distribution, and if you never have a bug in one of those
> libraries (that will, by virtue of Murphy's Law, be written in some
> exotic language few in your team master). Using libraries is the
> easy part, the hard part is maintainance.
That is why I use libraries that are supported, or I can maintain
myself. The Windows API is a library that we have been using for
year that has bugs with no source that we have to deal with. It has
never stoped my development. Why would the Microsoft supplied .Net
libaries be any different.
> > I know I could go on, but I really don't see the point.
>
> Me neither. If all the points you've listed are important to you,
> then Visual Studio would fulfill your needs more cleanly, and remove
> an extra proprietary layer to the MS compilers and libraries (which
> seem to be what you actually crave for). As far as ECO is concerned,
> odds are it will be available in VS someday.
I agree that Odss are that ECO may appear in VS someday... I need to do
development NOW, and not wait for "Someday" to occur. I need to be
able to use port my exisiting code without having to rewrite it in a
different language. Delphi is more than meeting my current needs, and
continues to make my life easier with each release.
Ok, you see to complain about the current direction. What would make
you happy as a Delphi Developer? What does borland need to do? Are
these suggestion in Quality Cental? Have you voted on them?
Hearing why you don't like something does little to solve your
problems, if you don't give people a clue of what you truely want.
--
Robert Love
Blog: http://peakxml.com
Brian Moelk
VS.NET. I think few debate that for the existing Delphi developer, there
are potentially good things by going to .NET (and some potential pitfalls).
The question is if it makes more sense to pursue .NET in VS.NET via
C#/Chrome or use Delphi for .NET. IOW, it's about how Borland's offerings
stack up directly to MS' offerings.
> Ok, you see to complain about the current direction. What would make
> you happy as a Delphi Developer? What does borland need to do? Are
> these suggestion in Quality Cental? Have you voted on them?
IMO, Borland has to deliver something more compelling than what they have
delivered. In addition, make it readily and widely accesible based on the
Pro price point. Grassroots support and the educational pipeline is vital
for a sustainable product.
I think QC is an inappropriate channel for this kind of discussion, and I'm
not sure if Borland has a formal way of doing this at all. I don't know the
name of our regional Borland sales rep, we typically buy from the online
shop. I do know that dev relations reads these NGs, so it seems the most
effective way is to post here and hope someone reads it.
> Hearing why you don't like something does little to solve your
> problems, if you don't give people a clue of what you truely want.
Personally, I have no "problem" with what Borland is offering in the .NET
space. I just don't think it's good enough to win my business or
recommendation. The question for me is: Does Borland really want my
business and word-of-mouth recommendation? Can they deliver a compelling
product vis-a-vis their competition in the .NET space?
FWIW, I recognize that it is extremely difficult to produce something truly
compelling and off the top of my head I don't really have any ideas on what
those things are in the .NET space, but, this isn't my responsibility
either. I'm a consumer not a producer. If I thought that Borland would be
truly receptive to those ideas, perhaps I'd give it more brain cycles but
I'm just one customer.
Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
> The question is if it makes more sense to pursue .NET in VS.NET via
> C#/Chrome or use Delphi for .NET. IOW, it's about how Borland's
> offerings stack up directly to MS' offerings.
The two questions aren't really the same. I use C# in Delphi. Works
well enough for me.
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz
Brian Moelk
> > C#/Chrome or use Delphi for .NET. IOW, it's about how Borland's
> > offerings stack up directly to MS' offerings.
>
> The two questions aren't really the same. I use C# in Delphi. Works
> well enough for me.
Technically, yes that is correct. But then answer the question purely from
the perspective of BDS vs. VS.NET?
The overall point is still valid and needs to be addressed IMO.
Robert Love
> > Ok, you see to complain about the current direction. What would
> > make you happy as a Delphi Developer? What does borland need to
> > do? Are these suggestion in Quality Cental? Have you voted on
> > them?
>
> IMO, Borland has to deliver something more compelling than what they
> have delivered. In addition, make it readily and widely accesible
> based on the Pro price point. Grassroots support and the educational
> pipeline is vital for a sustainable product.
Ok, technically what would need to be changed to make Delphi more
compeling? Is there something lacking that it needs? So far you have
mentioned items that R&D can't do anything about.
> I think QC is an inappropriate channel for this kind of discussion,
> and I'm not sure if Borland has a formal way of doing this at all. I
> don't know the name of our regional Borland sales rep, we typically
> buy from the online shop. I do know that dev relations reads these
> NGs, so it seems the most effective way is to post here and hope
> someone reads it.
QC is the best place to place suggestions and it is the direct channel
to QA and R&D at borland. If you have things like you mentioned
above, then I agree QC is not the best channel for this type of request.
Robert Love
> Technically, yes that is correct. But then answer the question
> purely from the perspective of BDS vs. VS.NET?
Just of the top of my head BDS offers the following over VS.NET I
suspect the actual list is longer.
.NET Libraries
-BDP
--Databse support for InterBase, Oracle, SQL Server, DB2, Access,
Sybase
--Unlike other ADO.NEt implemenations BDP you are not bound to the
database implementation details like field types.
--Visual Remoting
-DBWeb
-- Design Time Data for ASP.NET
-- Several additional controls
-ECO (Object spaces is not even on the radar currently)
IDE/compiler
-Refactoring (yes I know it will be in VS.NET 2005)
-SyncEdit
-Better Tool Pallete
-Code Snippets
-And the biggest point Delphi (.NET & Win32) Language Support
Can this be improved? YES!!! Everything can be improved on.
The big challenge is understand the needs of the customers and the
building a solution that mets those needs. This is something that
Borland has done in the past, I have no doubts they can continue to
deliever here.