Board index » delphi » Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)


2005-01-20 01:05:45 AM
delphi48
<<www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2003/01/13/intromcpp.html
Why can not borland do something like this with Delphi?
Quote
>
Managed C++ died, MS introduced new C++/CLI platform:
www.codeproject.com/managedcpp/cppcliintro01.asp
--
Steve Garland XXXX@XXXXX.COM
SkyWire Video - Cross Platform MPEG4 Video Streaming
SkyWire Video GPS- Location Based Integration of Video and Remote Devices
SkyWire VoIP - Convergence of IP and Telephone Systems- Win32 and PocketPC
ASTA Technology Group www.astatech.com www.astaskywire.com
 
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Quote
Managed C++ died, MS introduced new C++/CLI platform:
www.codeproject.com/managedcpp/cppcliintro01.asp
That is fine, now it has nicer syntax but the essence of
what it does remains the same (much improved though)- nice
interop between native/cli code both ways, ability to do
deterministic memory management, compile time optimization
etc. etc. All inside single project using the same language.
This is what I want. If MS offers it and Borland does
not then Delphi looks a second rate tool relegated to
the role of former VB.
Kostya
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

"Chris Brooksbank" <NoSpamPlease@Somewhere>writes
Quote
>- Why should a developer accept an additional layer containing bugs
>between the system and the app?

Like the VCL, you mean? :-)

Excellent come back ! Why this guy using Delphi when he could be writing
assembler ?

The VCL is natively compiled and you have its full source code. The VCL
does not sit between the system and the app. .NET is a black box, destined
to change many times. I don't know how you could think this was an
excellent come back at all.
At least with Delphi you can predict what code will be created and optimize
just as if you were writing in assembler, so I don't get your question.
Brent S.
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Further to that:
I can leave with being forced to .NET
if it does not impede the power. It
seems like VS2005 C++ kinda heading
that way. I see no reason why Borland
should not.
Kostya
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

"Jim Cooper" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

>- Why should someone want to port something to .NET? Where's the
>reason?

To take advantage of something that was only available in .NET
I can not imagine anything which will be available only in .NET.
Quote
(or possibly preparing for that).
So you admit there is nothing now?
Quote
To futureproof their code.
.NET will only be the future if it is widely accepted. It will be accepted
only if they don't upset all of thier customers. Their customers(developers
are customers too) will only be happy with backward compatability, fast
execution, and a lack of stringent OS requirements.
.NET has no compelling benefits for customers who are not developers.
Marketing cannot make up the gap.
Quote
To make code available on another platform supporting .NET (eg the CF)
I'll believe it when I see it. MS wants to sell MS operating systems.
Quote
To make code available to an ASP.NET application
Ok... Good point. This is .NETs place.
Quote

>- Why should a developer accept an additional layer containing bugs
>between the system and the app?

Like the VCL, you mean? :-)
The VCL is not a layer, and you have the source. Not exactly the same thing
is it?
Quote

>- Where is the reason to change the API at all?

Coz it is {*word*99}
Ok. Change the API... (no one really cares apart from customers demanding
backward compatability) Its not the API that I care about, but the ability
to sidestep all of the .NET garbage and continue to write native code, and
see what it compiles to.
Quote

>(oh, yes I know: M$ only needs to maintain one code base for MAC-OS and
>Windows.

And exactly how will .NET help there?
You said above: " To make code available on another platform supporting
.NET"
Your right though, .NET won't help you.
Quote

>Whats in there that could not be implemented in Native API?

Right now with released MS stuff, nothing. In the future we're assured
that will change.
Yes... Nothing... and since MS has to buy innovation now days a lot of it
will have to be ported after they buy it. Innovation will continue in and
out of .NET.
Quote

I wouldn't recommend anyone port anything to .NET without a good reason.
Still waiting for the reason.
Your argument in a nutshell:
1. .NET will be worth developing for because one day they will have neat
stuff that is only in .NET.
2. .NET is the future because MS says so.
3. We might get platform portability.
4. ASP.NET is cool.
</argument>
3 out of 4 are promises/threats (2 is a threat). ASP.NET is cool.
So for today only (4) is true.
Brent S.
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

"Kostya" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Further to that:

I can leave with being forced to .NET
if it does not impede the power. It
seems like VS2005 C++ kinda heading
that way. I see no reason why Borland
should not.
There is no way delphi could head that way without a 64-bit native
compiler...
Without it, they are so far behind VC++ it ain't funny... (You can not have
interop without having both sides of the coin to inter-op with...) You
won't be seeing interop between 64-bit D.NET and 32-bit native Delphi.
We've already been told by the MS engineers it can not be done. (I've posted
the quotes from the VC++ forum a long time ago).
-d
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Quote
There is no way delphi could head that way without a 64-bit native
compiler...
That is pretty obvious
Kostya
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

"Dennis Landi" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>wrote in
Quote

Without it, they are so far behind VC++ it ain't funny...


I guess there is no hope that SQL could compete either, huh?
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

"Brent S." <brentatatmosoftdotcom>a écrit dans le message de news:
41ee9b0d$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...
Quote
The VCL is natively compiled and you have its full source code. The VCL
does not sit between the system and the app. .NET is a black box,
destined
to change many times.
.NET is not a black box. Take any of the assemblies shipped and run them
through Reflector, you will see the code used to create the asemblies. M$
have not obfuscated their assemblies so that you can see how they are made.
Quote
At least with Delphi you can predict what code will be created and
optimize
just as if you were writing in assembler, so I don't get your question.
With .NET the code is optimised for the appropriate CPU/instruction set
dependent on the machine on which it is installed.
Joanna
Consultant Software Engineer
TeamBUG support for UK-BUG
TeamMM support for ModelMaker
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

"Joanna Carter (TeamB)" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
"Brent S." <brentatatmosoftdotcom>a écrit dans le message de news:
41ee9b0d$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...

With .NET the code is optimised for the appropriate CPU/instruction set
dependent on the machine on which it is installed.

Optimized, or not optimized, I don't know. I am sure there will be a better
level of optimization on some CPUs than others, and in some OS's more than
others (if they ever get it on another platform). While I agree that JIT
compiling is a neat feature, I don't need it. I want to see what the
compiler did before my software ships, and be responsible for its
performance. With .NET, I don't know which compiler will be used where, or
know what it is likely to do with my code. How often are they going to
release new versions? Who is to say that a future version won't break
something? Multiplicity of target architectures will only aggravate the
situation.
Brent S.
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Quote
The VCL does not sit between the system and the app.
Are you talking about the same VCL? What do you think it does sit between?
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
_______________________________________________
Jim Cooper XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Falafel Software www.falafelsoft.com
_______________________________________________
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Jim Cooper writes:
Quote
Are you talking about the same VCL? What do you think it does sit between?
LOL
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Quote
I can not imagine anything which will be available only in .NET.
We've moved beyond this point some time ago :-) Whether you can imagine
it or not is beside the point, it will still happen, according to MS.
You can choose not to believe them, but it there OS and their API...
Quote
So you admit there is nothing now?
I have never claimed there is something now. AFAIK that won't be an
issue until Longhorn at the earliest. I have said many times there is no
need to panic about this :-) Future proofing is a reason to move to
.NET, but IMO it is not especially urgent.
Quote
.NET has no compelling benefits for customers who are not developers.
No, I keep making that point myself. This is an issue for developers,
not end-users (not directly anyway), by and large.
Quote
Marketing cannot make up the gap.
MS marketing still don't know what .NET is - this is an issue of some
frustration for those MSers who do :-) There was a post a couple of days
ago about this.
Quote
I'll believe it when I see it. MS wants to sell MS operating systems.
Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression that I was talking about
non-MS OSes. But the CF runs on different hardware platforms.
Quote
The VCL is not a layer
Excuse me, but the VCL **is** a layer. If it isn't I have no idea what
you might think a layer is.
Quote
and you have the source.
You can get the source for most of the FCL too (you do not have the
complete VCL source either). You can also use Reflector on anything not
obfuscated (you can use it then too, but it is not much fun)
Quote
Not exactly the same thing is it?
Yes. Library calls are library calls. The performance hits in .NET are
down to the jitter, gc and so on.
Quote
continue to write native code, and see what it compiles to.
I've never had the slightest interest in seeing what a language compiles
to. that is the point of using a high-level language, after all. But
then, I have always been more interested in the problem-solving side of
things.
Quote
Still waiting for the reason.
Then don't change. that is the only sensible course for you.
Quote
1. .NET will be worth developing for because one day they will have neat
stuff that is only in .NET.
2. .NET is the future because MS says so.
3. We might get platform portability.
4. ASP.NET is cool.
More or less. it is a list of reasons, though, not an argument.
Quote
So for today only (4) is true.
No, 1, 2 and 3 are true too. 1 and 2 are not necessarily compelling
reasons to move *now* though. I use the CF for PocketPC work (ie point 3).
The tone of your reply seems to indicate you think I am trying to
advocate everyone move to .NET. I am not and I never have (read my
previous posts on the subject if you don't believe me). There is no
doubt that it will be very important in the near future, though. MS have
too much invested in it for it to be otherwise.
I have no problem with people not wanting to use it. I do have a problem
with the ill-informed diatribes that you often see here :-)
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
_______________________________________________
Jim Cooper XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Falafel Software www.falafelsoft.com
_______________________________________________
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Abdullah Kauchali writes:
Quote
somebody writes:
>What advantage does a Java written application bring to the user (of
>desktop apps)? Why should a user prefer a Java application over a native
>one?

Platform independence. Your move! :)
For desktop applications or for server applications ?
 

Re: Peace between Native and .NET freaks (a proposal)

Joanna Carter (TeamB) writes:
Quote
.NET is not a black box. Take any of the assemblies shipped and run
them through Reflector, you will see the code used to create the
asemblies.
Yes, indeed. You will onyl see a few "primitives", which can not be
disassembled. Large parts of the CLR are even available in source, as
part of the Rotor project, AFAIK.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.bei.t-online.de
"Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested
and the frog dies of it." -- E. B. White (1899-1985)