Board index » delphi » Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net


2006-08-14 05:00:03 AM
delphi233
In article <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, XXXX@XXXXX.COM
says...
Quote
In any case, the scenario here is different because the functionality
has already been written. I am yet to hear a sound argument as to why
this functionality should be re-written at the expense of other areas
of BDS development. Every time this has come up in the past, it has
always come across to me as an irrational fear of .NET with no valid
technical arguments as to why this should be done.
How about because it doesn't work as well as it should?
Have you looked at the CodeDOM?
If you have you surely must have wondered why on earth BDS refactoring
is implemented using a component that point-blank does not adequately
support the Delphi language and has numerous limitations even when used
for things that it _does_ supposedly support.
--
Jolyon Smith
 
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

In article <44dca4ed$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>,
Quote
But there are other alternatives to the registry:
XML is my personal favorite - it has the structure and expressiveness of
the registry with the portability and accessibility of INI files.
Plus it is perceived as "modern, {*word*226} technology".
:)
--
Jolyon Smith
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

In article <44dc53e6$XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, i.rather@not says...
Quote
- the code is utilizing something in .Net that doesn't exist in W32, it
would cost a lot of time (= money) to re-implement that in W32.
The latter it would seem - specifically CodeDOM.
Which raises a whole different set of questions (see elsewhere, but in
summary:)
CodeDOM doesn't really support the Delphi language very well, and in any
case no parsers existed so Borland had to write parsers.
It seems a strange decision to go to all that trouble to be able to use
something that still (as far as I can see) wasn't going to be up to the
job without further significant work.
I can not see that it would have been much more work than was already
required to be undertaken to have implemented an alternative which would
have a) done the job perfectly and b) would have been under Borland's
control so if it needed to change in the future they didn't have to wait
around for a framework component update from Microsoft simply in order
to deliver features in their OWN IDE!
<shrug>
Then of course there is the Together stuff (J#), but that should be
optionally installable, not mandatory.
<shrug again>
--
Jolyon Smith
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

Jolyon Smith writes:
Quote
Plus it is perceived as "modern, {*word*226} technology".
Bloated is {*word*226}?
--
Ben
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

In article <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, bhoc@tiscali123
^H^H^H.ch says...
Quote
Jolyon Smith writes:

>Plus it is perceived as "modern, {*word*226} technology".

Bloated is {*word*226}?
Keyword: Perceived
But in any event, well-formed XML doesn't _have_ to be bloated.
--
Jolyon Smith
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

"David Clegg" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

So what if your customers take exception to the fact that certain
functionality of your app is written in a specific language, or uses a
specific technology, even if this is totally transparent to them? Do
you bow to their concerns and re-invent the wheel even though it
doesn't make much business sense to do so?

If they want to pay for it. Sure.
OTOH, I haven't heard anyone here say they wanted to pay extra
for Delphi, just so DevCo can rewrite those already working features.
All I hear is that they want Delphi to cost less. <shrug>
--
Thanks,
Brad.
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

Jon Robertson writes:
Quote
Michael C. writes:

>If Microsoft's intentions are bad

Believe it or not, Microsoft's intentions regarding .NET are not bad.

I don't know their intentions.
They certainly haven't said anything like "We are here to help the community."
Quote
Shortsighted in cases, sure. Completely ignorant in others (VB
anyone?), sure. But overall, the intention is to make programming easier.
I doubt it.
I believe Microsoft's intentions are to be the most dominate company in the software marketplace.
That intention conflicts with "We just want to help people".
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

Ralf Mimoun writes:
Quote
Michael C. writes:
...
>If Microsoft's intentions are bad than it is evil.

Microsoft's intention is to make money. And to create a scenario where
they'll make money in the future. I'ts up to you to define that as
"evil" :-)
Love of money or control for it is own sake is always evil.
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

Michael C. writes:
Quote
Ralf Mimoun writes:
...
>Microsoft's intention is to make money. And to create a scenario
>where they'll make money in the future. I'ts up to you to define
>that as "evil" :-)

Love of money or control for it is own sake is always evil.
I don't work with terms like "evil". it is wrong, and it is easy to prove
that. But: does MS wants money just because it wants money? And: is it wrong
to sell a product that is not the best for the customers task, but only good
enough? If yes, then 90% of all companies should close immediately.
Ralf
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

Michael C. writes:
Quote
I don't know their intentions.
They certainly haven't said anything like "We are here to help the
community."
The only proper and rational thing for a for-profit business to say in this
regard is "we are here to make a profit for our owners and shareholders".
Interesting though that in a free market any company that wants to exist for
the longterm can only accomplish this by producing products and services
that people want to buy. Whether you or I want or like a particular product
is irrelevant as long as sufficient others do, and by that standard, any
such business *is* 'helping the community" in the only way that actually
matters.
--
Wayne Niddery - Winwright, Inc (www.winwright.ca)
"Light is faster than sound, which is why some folks appear bright
before they speak."
 

Re: Controversial question re: Turbo and .Net

Quote
>overall, the intention is to make programming easier.
I believe Microsoft's intentions are to be the most dominate
company in the software marketplace. That intention conflicts
with "We just want to help people".
Making software that is useful to people, which /helps/ people, does not
conflict with wanting to maintain {*word*108} in the software marketplace.
In fact, it is a requirement for maintaining {*word*108}.
The same is true for making it easier to create software for the Windows
platform. This is a requirement to keep application developers on the
Windows platform, increasing the software market for the Windows platform,
and thus ensuring {*word*108} in the overall software marketplace.
And while I don't create .NET applications, I easily acknowledge the fact
that it is easier to create complex Windows applications in .NET than it
is in Win32. I wish the .NET Framework had been around when we started
our product seven years ago.