Board index » delphi » Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes


2004-02-12 02:18:58 PM
delphi135
David Farrell-Garcia writes:
Quote
David Erbas-White writes:


>That's great if the business paradigm you're serving will allow that.
>My client is selling a physical tool/product. It is often in remote
>locations, or in third-world places.


David, I understand what you are saying but do you think that Borland
should gauge their future busines decisions on such a small market
segment? If the software is legacy, and one must continue to support
it then use legacy development tools which are readily available. I
cannot see why you would need Delphi 8 or even Delphi 7 for that. No vendor
should be expected to support Windows 3 or 4 versions back with brand
new development tools. MS is not supporting Win 95 and will soon drop
support for Win 98 so why shouldn't Borland?

In any case, I see no problem. I actually still have Delphi 1 running
on Windows XP (imagine that!) and use it to support a very old
application that we deployed in 1995 and it runs on every version of
Windows from 3.1 to Windows Server 2003. Now that is what I call ROI.

David,
I don't believe I intimated that. I was commenting (initially) as to
why my client didn't want to move to .NET. Period. The discussion
evolved into files sizes, the download needed for .NET, etc. I didn't
make any comment (that I remember <G>) about Borland basing their
decision on this type of stuff, I was relating what MY OWN personal need
was for .NET (i.e., non-existent).
I recognize that other users have a need for .NET. Personally, I have a
far greater need for bug fixes to the Win32 products.
David Erbas-White
 
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Quote
It is already part of the default install of Windows Server 2003
The .Net 1.0 is, but not 1.1, and with each .net release,
this situation won't improve.
Having ".net already installed" means nothing, what you need
is the version of .net you developped against.
Eric
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Quote
What DirectX API could Delphi directly consume w/o a wrapper layer,
before?
You're missing the point.
There have been major philosophical shifts in the history of DirectX,
which could just as well happen with .Net, and more or less mean you'll
have to start rewriting the compiler, RTL and all other components
from scratch or near enough. And MS can make such changes without
any impact to C# users f.i, only by reworking the innards to fix flaws
or accomodate new concepts. Similarly, whole chunks of the .Net standard
library can (and *will*) be dropped without warning.
But unlike for the Win32 API, MS doesn't bother to ensure stability
of say, DirectX 5, when DirectX 7 came out, and thus, new release
introduce behaviour changes in what are officially "freeze" old release,
that should behave now as they behaved in their days.
With classic APIs, MS never dropped DLLs, and kept maintaining them
in stable state. With "new" APIs, ala DirectX, MS doesn't hesitate
to drop things, and thus force you to update a lot of code just to
get minor upgrades or feature additions (f.i. shaders in the 3D world,
in OpenGL you can integrate them to your old code where you want,
but in DirectX, if your app is based on DirectX7 that won't be possible
until you port it to DirectX9, which can mean a lot of code rewrite
with zero benefits).
Besides, do you know a DirectX API that .Net can consume w/o a wrapper layer?
DirectX 9 doesn't qualify, it is a wrapper around the COM interfaces (unlike
what MS claims, you can access the underlying COM interfaces through
undocumented means), and neither will announced DX10 plans allow it unless
a major philosophical shift occurs in .net 2.0.
One could also point that in Delphi 8, the support for pro APIs like OpenGL,
is quite... erm... let's say you'd better not need anything beyond a spinning
triangle.
Eric
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Eric Grange writes:
Quote
The .Net 1.0 is, but not 1.1, and with each .net release,
I don't believe that is correct. I checked my Server 2003 .net version
and it is 1.1 and I have not installed any updates.
Quote
this situation won't improve.
Having ".net already installed" means nothing, what you need
is the version of .net you developed against.
That's ridiculous. You have the same issue with MDAC, core Windows
.dll's and many other libraries. One of the big advantages of .NET is
that you can have multiple versions of it running on the same machine
and your apps will know which to use and work just fine. it is not
perfect but it is a big step forward. It does not affect Win32
applications in any way. All these rumblings remindes me of when
Win 95 was first released but I don't hear anybody longing for 16 bit
Windows.
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

David Erbas-White writes:
Quote
I don't believe I intimated that. I was commenting (initially) as to
why my client didn't want to move to .NET. Period. The discussion
evolved into files sizes, the download needed for .NET, etc. I didn't
make any comment (that I remember <G>) about Borland basing their
decision on this type of stuff, I was relating what MY OWN personal
need was for .NET (i.e., non-existent).
I jumped in only in response to your comments about Win 95 support,
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Eric Grange in <402b5220$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
You're missing the point.
Or maybe you're missing mine. ;-)
Quote
Besides, do you know a DirectX API that .Net can consume w/o a
wrapper layer?
I know one that Delphi for .NET can consume w/o Borland having to write
a wrapper layer for.
--
John Kaster, Borland Developer Relations, bdn.borland.com
Add a feature/Fix a bug: qc.borland.com
Get source: cc.borland.com
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

"Dave Jewell" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
But for a customer who is new to both Borland and Microsoft dev
tools, this is not the case.
I guess that depends on whether that customer is a software developer or
just a coder. A mere coder isn't going to get too excited about CalibreRM,
Bold, etc. He doesn't know enough to get excited about them. He'd be like
that silly Verity Stobb that writes for Dr Dobbs.
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

"Admiral Jake" <johnjac76[nospam]@comcast.net>writes
Quote
I guess that depends on whether that customer is a software developer or
just a coder. A mere coder isn't going to get too excited about CalibreRM,
Bold, etc. He doesn't know enough to get excited about them. He'd be like
that silly Verity Stobb that writes for Dr Dobbs.
Question is, how many of Borland's long-term customers are just "mere"
coders?
Dave
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Quote
I don't believe that is correct. I checked my Server 2003 .net version
and it is 1.1 and I have not installed any updates.
Installed a Win2k3 and an XP system yesterday.
Both had the "upgrade to .Net 1.1" option available in Windows Update,
and they did NOT fake the download.
Quote
That's ridiculous. You have the same issue with MDAC, core Windows
.dll's and many other libraries.
So you claim you can run your .Net 1.1 assembly on a .Net 1.0 install?
No? Then you agree with me, having .net installed doesn't mean a thing,
the installed version means everything.
And you DO NOT have the same issue as with MDAC or other DLLs: I can write
code that will work against a recent or older version of a DLL, with
selection at runtime.
You can not do that with .net: if the version you require is not installed,
your assembly can not be interpreted/JITed/run. Period.
Eric
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Quote
Or maybe you're missing mine. ;-)
Actually, I got it well, but I won't let you dodge bullets
matrix-style without point at the special FX.
Quote
I know one that Delphi for .NET can consume w/o Borland having to write
a wrapper layer for.
That's another dodge. :)
When did Borland write wrappers for DirectX before?
Besides, try to use DirectX vertex buffer or texture streaming in Delphi 8
(or C# for that matter)...
Eric
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

"Dave Jewell" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Question is, how many of Borland's long-term customers are just "mere"
coders?
Apparently not too many, judging from Borland sales figures. Most of their
money is made from the highest end products that contain all the design
tools, not from the Pro versions that contain just coding tools. This has
been the case since the Pizzaman daze.
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

"Admiral Jake" wrote
Quote
Apparently not too many, judging from Borland sales figures.
Most of their money is made from the highest end products [...]
Source? I thnk the claim credible, but I have never seen figures of that
detail released.
bobD
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Eric Grange writes:
Quote
Installed a Win2k3 and an XP system yesterday.
Both had the "upgrade to .Net 1.1" option available in Windows Update,
and they did NOT fake the download.
You may be right, I don't remember but it really is quite simple. As
in all things, it will have the newer .net version if it was released
after the .net version otherwise it will have the one in vogue at the
time. Do you know of any libraries that are different then that? I
think not.
Quote
So you claim you can run your .Net 1.1 assembly on a .Net 1.0 install?
No? Then you agree with me, having .net installed doesn't mean a
thing, the installed version means everything.
I don't think I said that at all. I said you could run more then one
.net version on the same machine and your assembly will know which one
to load. That seems pretty elegant to me. Or perhaps you like the old
way better when a newer .dll overwrites an old .dll and crashes your
program.
Quote

And you DO NOT have the same issue as with MDAC
or other DLLs: I can
write code that will work against a recent or older version of a DLL,
with selection at runtime.
Ohhhh. So the term "DLL Hell" is one that I just made up??
Are you saying that if your customer has only MDAC 2.6 installed and
you write code that requries 2.7 then your user does not have to
install 2.7? Yeah right! If you are saying that you can purposly
write code that uses an older version of MDAC then ok, so what? You
can also write to an older version of .NET.
You can only use an older .dll if you just happen not to call any
function that is not in that "older" dll. If you install an
application that requres a newer .dll and then the end user installs an
older application that overwrites the newer dll your application may
very well crash. Period.
Quote
You can not do that with .net: if the version you require is not
installed, your assembly can not be interpreted/JITed/run. Period.
Guess you don't get it. The fact is that it WOULD be installed and CAN
coexist with any other .Net version that is installed, sitting there
doing nothing until called into action.
The good news is that you can continue with your Win32 development, for
the time being. I still do some as well, but sooner or later, if you
stick to Windows development, you will be doing .NET, like it or not.
It's a whitewater ride, and you can ride or sit on the banks and watch,
but you can not go upstream for long.
--
David Farrell-Garcia
Whidbey Island Software LLC
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

Eric Grange writes:
Quote
So you claim you can run your .Net 1.1 assembly on a .Net 1.0 install?
IIRC, you can allow this, although obviously there are limitations. I
don't remember how to do it, though.
-Craig
--
Craig Stuntz [TeamB] . Vertex Systems Corp. . Columbus, OH
Delphi/InterBase Weblog : delphi.weblogs.com
Everything You Need to Know About InterBase Character Sets:
delphi.weblogs.com/stories/storyReader$306
 

Re: Goodbye and Best Wishes

"Bob Dawson" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
"Admiral Jake" wrote
>Apparently not too many, judging from Borland sales figures.
>Most of their money is made from the highest end products [...]

Source? I thnk the claim credible, but I have never seen figures of that
detail released.
Hopefully either JK or AO is reading this and can answer this.