Board index » delphi » Re: Why no language improvements?

Re: Why no language improvements?


2005-03-09 01:08:14 AM
delphi266
Mike Margerum writes:
Quote
Language evolution doesnt constitute the couple of bones Borland has
thrown you in the last 5 years.
So you /are/ arguing that Delphi isn't evolving? If Delphi isn't, with
all those changes, then what is your view of C++, with, as far as I can
tell, an /empty/ list since 1997?
Quote
Real language improvement stopped
with delphi 3.
Yes, that impressive list of things, the majority of which came after
D3, is a pretty big "bone".
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Quote
Mike argued that Delphi has hardly evolved at all since 1995. I think
that argument is ridiculous.

you can do a line count of the few things that were added since then and
interfaces was the only really major change since d1.
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Leonel writes:
+AD4- Aren't default parameters new, too?
Ooh, added to the ever-growing list+ACE-
Yup, no innovation and evolution here. Nope. +ADs--)
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Quote

So you /are/ arguing that Delphi isn't evolving? If Delphi isn't, with
all those changes, then what is your view of C++, with, as far as I can
tell, an /empty/ list since 1997?


We are recursing here nick. Please lets stop.
C++ had many of these features already.
Quote
Yes, that impressive list of things, the majority of which came after
D3, is a pretty big "bone".

I didnt see very much there that impressed me.
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Mike Margerum writes:
+AD4- interfaces destroy objects implicitly. Do you not use them?
Yes, I use them. But as I said, I prefer explicitness.
+AD4- Strings are
+AD4- destroyed implicitly. would you rather have a +ACI-pure+ACI-
class where you
+AD4- had to create/free it?
Would I rather? Probably not. I am flexible to a certain degree on
this.
+AD4- Im sure you personally dont. im also sure you personally have
had to
+AD4- find other peoples crashes and leaks.
That I have. Of course, you can have crashes and leaks in C+-+-, too,
right?
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Leonel writes:
+AD4-
+AD4- It'd be cool if you could break it by version.
I will, if people want to comment. I am not very good at remembering the
when of all of this.
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Leonel writes:
+AD4- Don't forget to include Unicode Identifiers.
Ooh, more for the list+ACE-
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Mike Margerum writes:
+AD4- just tired of going back and forth on what consitutes language
+AD4- evolution.
I'm not sure we've been going back and forth. Mostly the 'forth' has
been on showing the large list of language additions to Delphi, while
the 'back' has been you struggling to find points to make in the face
of the ever-expanding list.
+AD4- If you feel like this is your mini victory is an otherwise
+AD4- poor showing by all means you can have it.
Thanks. I feel quite satisfied that I have demonstrated quite clearly
that Delphi has evolved as a language quite a bit, and that C+-+-
hasn't evolved at all.
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Mike Margerum writes:
+AD4- you can do a line count of the few things that were added since
then
+AD4- and interfaces was the only really major change since d1.
Well, I guess that is true if you define +ACI-major+ACI- as so
restrictive as to include interfaces.
In addition, I note now that you are discussing +ACI-major
changes+ACI-, instead of just +ACI-changes+ACI-. I assume you concede
that, while in your view there has only bee one +ACI-major+ACI- change,
there have indeed been many changes?
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Nick Hodges +AFs-TeamB+AF0- writes:
+AD4- I will, if people want to comment. I am not very good at
remembering
+AD4- the when of all of this.
In his reply to you, Will annotated his quote with the versions.
--
Leonel
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Mike Margerum writes:
Quote
yes for .net only for the most part. Forking is even worse than not
having a feature.
Ahh, are you now agreeing that Delphi have been evolving, but that
forking of the language is the problem?
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

"Nick Hodges [TeamB]" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Why can not you just accept the obvious? Delphi has evolved and added a
lot more language features than C++ has over the past decade. It's
utterly obvious.
I think both languages have grown a lot, and it is not entirely obvious
which grew "more." If we do a raw count of changes or a percentage
change or some other measurement, it is still not clear. It also
depends if you consider the standard library to be part of "the
language". For example, nothing prohibits the library from actually
being implemented inside the compiler, and including the header (or
using the unit) might actually only enable more functionality in the
compiler, rather than using files.
So it is fuzzy to me. I consider C++ to have grown a lot. I have
watched Delphi grow through the years but have not paid enough
attention to be able to make a fair comparison.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Quote

Would I rather? Probably not. I am flexible to a certain degree on
this.

So you are flexible on implicit behavior? please explain.
Quote

That I have. Of course, you can have crashes and leaks in C++, too,
right?

Yes if people dont use things like smart pointers and type safe
containers. Most of the C++ bugs are caused by using old idioms. You
know like deplhi uses. You can build C++ apps today without hardly
using any pointers. Well, except when I interface with the VCL ;)
Being able to copy objects along with generic containers is incredibly
usesful and there is all kinds of implicit behavior going on there.
Implicit behavior isnt a bad thing as long as you understand the
concepts involved.
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Mike Margerum writes:
Quote
We are recursing here nick. Please lets stop.
C++ had many of these features already.
I think stopping would be a great idea, since it is pretty clear that
your claims have been pretty much shot down.
Quote
C++ had many of these features already.
That may be true, but of course, doesn't bear on whether Delphi is
evolving or not. I think it is blatant that Delphi is evolving rather
vigorously.
Quote
I didnt see very much there that impressed me.
Now for it to be evolution it has to "impress you". Are you conceding
then, that, while unimpressive to you, the list of improvements to
Delphi is extensive?
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Why no language improvements?

Quote
I think both languages have grown a lot, and it is not entirely obvious
which grew "more." If we do a raw count of changes or a percentage
change or some other measurement, it is still not clear. It also
He wants numbers darn it. Its all he's got.
Quote
So it is fuzzy to me. I consider C++ to have grown a lot. I have
watched Delphi grow through the years but have not paid enough
attention to be able to make a fair comparison.

Its a ridiculous comparison.