Board index » delphi » Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Re: Win32 vs. .NET


2004-08-24 02:45:38 PM
delphi216
Nick Hodges [TeamB] writes:
Quote
They are telling everyone that will listen or read Danny's blog.
They are telling everyone here.
Everyone?
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Alvaro GP writes:
Quote
2. Since .NET's birth, some years ago, I have seen much hype, but few
real world important applications.
You seem to forget ASP.Net.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Nick Hodges [TeamB] writes:
Quote

This, clearly, is true. But of course, Borland isn't even close to
neglecting Win32.
From the Delphi/Win32 point of view, all they've done is 2 very thin
updates in the past 3.5 years (D6->D7 and D7->D7.1). Both updates have
added almost zero new value to the core IDE, the language, and the core
RTL/VCL libraries, and have been just barely enough to keep the D/W32
community from suffocating in its own howls of starvation.
--
Kristofer
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Captain Jake writes:
Quote
But Borland would have to support .NET or they would lose
the attention of bleeding edge developers and the tech media. Never
underestimate the lemming factor in human activities.
OTOH, it looks like Microsoft this time has much *over*estimated the
lemming factor.
Bleeding edge developers ("we didn't expect a kind of Spanish
Inquisition") got bored with .NET some 3 years ago and moved on to more
esoteric stuff. They, and the Media, got tired of trying to drag along
the 500 million tonnes train known as the Win32 developer community.
There simply wasn't enough "juice" available in the .NET loco(pro)motive
engine to do this.
This is why .NET (with the possible exception of ASP.Net), at least in
its current form, is DOA: Neither the runtime nor the development
environment promises a stable platform on which to base business for the
years to come. Certainly not on a scale comparable to the 10 years of
surprisingly stable Win32 that we've been privileged to enjoy.
Some of us are nearly now at a point where we'd consider switching
tracks, if only out of need for a refreshing change after 10 years of
Win32. But as we look around, along with the 4-year-old (and not
uncontroversial, I might add) .NET paradigm, we see freshly painted road
signs leading to native 64-bit computing, and our friends in Redmond are
already jumping up and down with e{*word*277}ment over Longhorn (which, 'tis
true, won't be here for another 4 years, but hey, you should definitely
be ready to develop for it today! <g>).
Borland needs to continuously take some risks following development
trends. So, then, just as we saw Delphi 6 and Delphi 7 being "Delphi with
cross-platform support for Linux", Delphi 8 and D9 being "Delphi with support
for .NET", I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if .NET support will be
just as absent from D10 as Kylix/CLX support is absent in D8. :-) - now
replaced by the latest+greatest from Redmond. Just fine, as long as we
can continue using Delphi to create Win32 apps! <g>
I do hope, however, that Borland has learned from the Kylix and .Net
mess they've run into, and will remember to stay loyal to the core
Delphi product and not bet all of their R&D resources on some hype
technology that their customers are unwilling to buy into.
--
Kristofer
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Ingvar Nilsen writes:
Quote

This is how you wish the world was (is), isn't it? :-)
Clearly the statement of "DOA" is an opinion, a judgement.
But it is based on observation.
Like I said, ASP.NET may continue on its own momentum (as being better
than anything else currently available). But in the current climate, the
baseline .NET framework needs major promotional boosts to convincingly
re-assert itself as "solid partner for the future". What with Microsoft
being all infatuated with the Longhorn future, however, I see little
chance of such support now appearing.
--
Kristofer
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Quote
>2. Since .NET's birth, some years ago, I have seen much hype, but few
>real world important applications.

You seem to forget ASP.Net.
Nah.
ASP.NET is fine, but it is competing with Cold Fusion, PHP, ASP etc. The
test of .NET's relevance as a software development platform is IMO how it
competes on the desktop, on the server, and in distributed applications.
That MS have made an ASP mark II that is better than the original is neither
here nor there.
It's not like you can not do web development without ASP.NET. You can do it
with Delphi for Win 32 (IntraWeb, Express Web Frameworks) or you could use a
raft of other excellent web development environment products out there.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Quote
Borland needs to continuously take some risks following development
trends.
And they need to make some trends. it is not enough to follow a latest
bandwagon all the time. They need to pick some niches and opportunities and
forge something unique that no-one else is.
I guess the Application Life Cycle stuff is a good stab along these lines,
but they need to do more.
Lauchlan M
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Kristofer Skaug writes:
Quote
This is why .NET (with the possible exception of ASP.Net), at least
in its current form, is DOA: Neither the runtime nor the development
environment promises a stable platform on which to base business for
the years to come. Certainly not on a scale comparable to the 10
years of surprisingly stable Win32 that we've been privileged to
enjoy.
This is how you wish the world was (is), isn't it? :-)
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Lauchlan M writes:
Quote
>You seem to forget ASP.Net.
Nah.

That MS have made an ASP mark II that is better than the original is
neither here nor there.
Ahem..cough.. you're right, ASP has something in common with ASP.Net,
the name. Apart from that, ASP.Net compared with ASP is like comparing
an airplane with a car.
Quote
It's not like you can not do web development without ASP.NET.
Exactly.
Quote
You can do it with Delphi for Win 32 (IntraWeb, Express Web
Frameworks) or you could use a raft of other excellent web
development environment products out there.
Absolutely - one can even write a proprietary system like I did 3 years
ago. It was fast, good, written in Delphi, but proprietary, only I knew
about it <g>.
The former poster however claimed that .Net apps were rare, which might
be the case when you overlook ASP.Net. There are already many web apps
based on ASP.Net. Which was my point.
--
Ingvar Nilsen
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

John Kaster (Borland) writes:
Quote
Furthermore, the blog server is still in beta and has not been
officially announced yet.
Hi John,
Are you kind of implying that when officially announced BDN users may
blog as well?
Just curious :-)
Andrew
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

"Alvaro GP" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Hi everybody,

I have been reading lately threads like
"Borland Trying To Get Away From Native Compilers",
".Net vs WinAPI32",
"Disadvantages of Delphi.NET",
etc..
<snip>...having to update their Internet Explorer to
version 5.01 or later (this last requirement being the most ridiculous one
I
have ever seen).

I remember trying to upgrade Windows 98 to be Y2K compliant and being
required to install the latest version of IE. The patch wasn't available
separately.
Of course, Mr. Bill and his minions pleaded with the court that they just
can't figure out how to package code into modules. Right. Then they call
this innovative.
Kirk Halgren
"A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation."
-- H. H. Munro ("Saki")
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Kristofer Skaug writes:
Quote
This is why .NET (with the possible exception of ASP.Net), at least in
its current form, is DOA: Neither the runtime nor the development
environment promises a stable platform on which to base business for
the years to come. Certainly not on a scale comparable to the 10
years of surprisingly stable Win32 that we've been privileged to
enjoy.
Sorry, but I think this is way off base. I hear nothing but the exact
opposite.
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Ingvar Nilsen writes:
Quote
There are already many web apps
based on ASP.Net. Which was my point.
And it is a good one.
--
Nick Hodges -- TeamB
Lemanix Corporation -- www.lemanix.com
Read my Blog -- www.lemanix.com/nick
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

From what I have been reading in the NG's, win32 is here to stay for a
while and that is fine by me and that is good news for me. I switched to
Dephi a few years ago (from VB) because I wasn't interested in .net at
all and I wanted a dev environment that would be actively improved.
Delphi Win32 was such an improvement over VB(Visual Basic) (6) in terms of IDE (much
more elegant), language (Pascal; I seem to like it better), OO design,
threading, stand alone exe's, more affordable 3rd party market (with
source, I might add)....must I go on? I am most have tried or worked in
VB before, but I think there is a certain perspective you get when
coming from MS only product (Access,VB) to Delphi, the law of contrast
is strong here.
I don't blame Borland for going .net, seems like a good business
decision to me and with what I have been hearing about D9, I feel a bit
comforted that Borland knows how important win32 is to them (and their
customers) for a while to come.
After years of watching flame wars on MS NG's with Delphi zealots, I
tried Delphi, then made the jump. I am rooting for Borland to not leave
me standing in the wind.
--
Warm Regards,
Lee
 

Re: Win32 vs. .NET

Quote
Absolutely - one can even write a proprietary system like I did 3 years
ago. It was fast, good, written in Delphi, but proprietary, only I knew
about it <g>.

The former poster however claimed that .Net apps were rare, which might
be the case when you overlook ASP.Net. There are already many web apps
based on ASP.Net. Which was my point.
By '.net apps' I take it he means .net desktop apps etc. Not web apps.
My point was that these are pretty much distinct functional categories. I
happily concede ASP.NET produces viable asp.net web applications. The
question is what is being accomplished for .net desktop/server applications,
both in the development sense and in the sense of what is commercially
viable (ie are people put off by the download).
Lauchlan M