Board index » delphi » Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE


2006-09-06 09:45:32 AM
delphi24
Mat Ballard writes:
Quote
Then you never owned Delhi 8 ! Or Delphi 2005 !
Sure I do, along with every version before and since.
[...]
Quote
Do you start to understand ???
I don't think you're solving the problem you think you are by asking
them to remove all traces of .Net.
Personally, I don't care what the add-ons are written in. I just know
that I don't want to give up the BDS productivity features and would
rather DevCo spend its time improving the existing and adding these and
adding new functionality rather than rewriting what's already there.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

In article <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>, I.P. Nichols says...
Quote
[Rhetorical Question #3:] And why isn't Turbo's IDE being written in 100%
pure Win32, wasn't it good enough? ;-)
I've heard a rumor that the answer to all three questions involve the
sensibility of retaining a large valuable legacy code base.
Well, the answer to #3 aiui is not that at all.
The IDE _is_ written in Win32 except for:
- the Together bits which use .net (J# ?)
- the refactorings, which use the .net CodeDOM. Despite
CodeDOM not being, erm, good enough (out of the box,
as it were).
So, if the completely optional Together stuff were made, um, optional,
and if the refactorings were refactored (lol) using a Win32 engine, you
could have an entirely Win32 IDE.
:)
--
Jolyon Smith
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

James K Smith writes:
Quote
I agree with that, and unfortunately I am not seeing Delphi even as a viable
..net product, simply because VS/C# really is good stuff, and will always
have the inside track.
I have my doubts as well; IMO the .NET strategy is to go upstream via
ECO and/or to places where MS won't go: e.g. mono.
Quote
Granted I have got some Delphi sentimentality going
here because TP and Delphi have made my experiences as a programmer very
satisfying.
That's why we're here ;)
Quote
I think there is a very strategic native hook that Delphi might
be able to exploit that goes beyond the scope of whatever MSFT is up to
though, and it may require no more units of work than fully supporting .net
3 would.
Agreed 100%; I think DevCo's ROI will demonstrate that to be true.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Quote
Would you like to have a registry-free, single directory (with
subdirectories) install of BDS?

--
Nick Hodges
Yes, sooner rather than later.
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Right on. A thousand pardons to Brian Twinings and other contributors for
drifting this thread, but let me throw this out, and I am certainly open to
it being shot down wholesale:
1) Is there a single high productivity 64 bit development environment
available which appeals to those involved specifically in the development of
server, middleware, process intensive, high-traffic applications across
Win64, Linux64, OSX?
2) What processor manufacturer which has reached a major degree of parity
with Intel, but unlike Intel does not have its own compiler, or compiler
partner committed to supporting and optimizing its own non-Intel compatible
extensions?
3) Who has shown a great proof-of-concept that Delphi can manage highly
optimized, processor specific code transparently for the developer?.
4) Does MSFT have any interest whatsoever in this space?
Let's leave non-Intel compatible processors out of the discussion as not
important, so we're talking about Intel, AMD, and Transmeta only (yep, I do
think they will make it).
James
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

"Jolyon Smith" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols says...

>[Rhetorical Question #3:] And why isn't Turbo's IDE being written in
>100%
>pure Win32, wasn't it good enough? ;-)

>I've heard a rumor that the answer to all three questions involve the
>sensibility of retaining a large valuable legacy code base.

Well, the answer to #3 aiui is not that at all.

The IDE _is_ written in Win32 except for:
I rather like that, answer my somewhat ironical obfuscation with one of your
own. ;-)
An interesting take on the first two Rhetorical Questions is contained in
this link.
bloggingabout.net/blogs/erwyn/archive/2006/08/16/Office-2007-and-the-CLR-get-along-after-all.aspx
So it is a bit like the guy that asks a lady at the bar if she will spend the
night for a million dollars and she hesitates and finally answers "yes" and
he then asks how about for five dollars and she haughtily responds,
"exactly what do you think I am" and he says, "you have already established
that, now we are haggling over price." ;-)
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG) writes:
Quote
Would you like to have a registry-free, single directory (with
subdirectories) install of BDS?
Do you really need to ask that? :-)
Isn't that how we would like all computer programs to be(have)? Let me
move it around when I add another hard disk, put it on a memory stick
and bring it from the lab to production for debugging, making backup
easier, etc. etc.
My answer is YES.
You probably would have to make it 'double directory' though, program
folder/read-only and data folder/read-write (not necessarily in the
same part of the directory tree(s)) , to match the Windows rules.
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: web.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: web.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG) writes:
Quote
Brian Moelk writes:

>But I'd like to see Delphi more modular and file based in its
>dependencies especially with packages/components to make it easier
>to setup/move the environment via source control or portable
>harddrives.

Would you like to have a registry-free, single directory (with
subdirectories) install of BDS?
YES PLEASE. Any chance for tomorrow? I was going to ask for yesterday,
but decided to be reasonable ;-)
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Eric Grange writes:
Quote
>You mean it is not a fully managed OS?
>How surprising ;-)

Not just that, but in early Vista betas, there were several services
implemented with .Net, that later got replaced by native versions.

Eric
Yes, I saw an analysis a while ago, where somebody itemised the
reduction in .NET usage during the Vista beta process (sorry, did not
bookmark it).
I've not seen any info about exactly why the various bits were
replaced, though obviously performance seems a likely reason. IIRC,
didn't you discuss here a long time the likely problems that the
current .NET GC would have with scaling up on systems using multi-core
processors?
Ian
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG) writes:
Quote
Chee Wee Chua (Borland Support) writes:

>So easy that I had the same game, Digger, written in Delphi Win32
>(VCL) and Delphi .NET (WinForms).

Yep -- it is one of the benefits of VCL.NET. If you want to have an
application work in both worlds, it can be easier to write it on the
.NET side, and then move it to Win32.
Nick,
While I definitely appreciate the benefits for people looking to port
existing code to .NET, that seems to me to be a one-way process.
Do you think there are many people who want to have two different
versions of exactly the same program targetting exactly the same PCs?
I can not for the life of me see why. If .NET offers benefits - it is a
rich framework, after all - then use it. If it doesn't, then don't. I
just don't understand the requirement to do both at the same time.
Apart from politics (such as satisfying terminally stupid PHBs who need
to tick the .NET box), are there any reasons to design/maintain a "dual
platform" system?
Ian
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
An interesting take on the first two Rhetorical Questions is
contained in this link.
bloggingabout.net/blogs/erwyn/archive/2006/08/16/Office-2007-an
d-the-CLR-get-along-after-all.aspx
OMG, the Calendar Printing Assistant for Outlook 2007 uses .NET. Surely
a complete .NET rewrite is now only a step away ;-)
Ian
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Quote
b) ditch the whole registry thing and go back to the old INI (now
XML) system.
INI is good, simple to edit, humanly-readable.
Eric
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

IanH writes:
Quote
While I definitely appreciate the benefits for people looking to port
existing code to .NET, that seems to me to be a one-way process.
It isn't.
Quote
Do you think there are many people who want to have two different
versions of exactly the same program targetting exactly the same PCs?
Agreed. I am not sure how often it would be useful to have entire
projects that build in both platforms. How about common library code
that's used in ongoing Win32 (several different versions) and .Net
projects?
Delphi's compatibility is one of its strongest features. Consider the
alternative where writing for each version of the compiler or across
different platforms is painful and requires rewrites or forward only
migration. I would rather spend that time writing software that I can bill
for instead of just porting, and forget about supporting developers
with multiple versions of the compiler.
And these aren't hypothetical examples.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

Brian Moelk writes:
Quote
James K Smith writes:
>I agree with that, and unfortunately I am not seeing Delphi even as a viable
>..net product, simply because VS/C# really is good stuff, and will always
>have the inside track.

I have my doubts as well; IMO the .NET strategy is to go upstream via
ECO and/or to places where MS won't go: e.g. mono.
I agree with you about the future possibilities for ECO - though, IMO, it
will only really succeed if the BDS .NET strategy is based around bundling
a C# compiler that is fully up-to-date...or even, indeed, if ECO is
completely divorced from the BDS altogether. AFAICT, non-Delphi folk who
/might/ be interested in ECO never get as far as finding out it exists as
soon as they see how lacking Delphi.NET is compared to VS...
I do have a problem with the idea of going down the Mono route, however.
AFAICT, Mono /itself/ is currently tied explicitly to .NET and the feature
lag it suffers is even worse than that experienced by the BDS. IMHO, it is a
bad enough situation with the BDS .NET strategy being inevitably tied to one
third party framework - the notion of being tied to a third party framework
(Mono) that is itself is tied to yet /another/ third party framework (.NET)
whilst lagging /miles/ behind the original in terms of features (and, ISTM,
is shedding features at an alarming rate) would be way beyond the pale...
 

Re: 100% pure Win32 IDE

"IanH" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:

>An interesting take on the first two Rhetorical Questions is
>contained in this link.
>bloggingabout.net/blogs/erwyn/archive/2006/08/16/Office-2007-and-the-CLR-get-along-after-all.aspx

OMG, the Calendar Printing Assistant for Outlook 2007 uses .NET. Surely
a complete .NET rewrite is now only a step away ;-)
OMG, the Refactoring module for BDS 2006 uses .NET. Surely a complete .NET
rewrite is now only a step away. :(
Of course the obvious answer to both OMG canards is when pig fly. ;-)
OTOH using .NET features like WPF presents a sensible and cost effective way
to extend and enhance legacy apps like Office. I should think that there
will be Delphi native Win32 apps that can benefit from this sort of thing.
Microsoft has also developed new totally.NET apps like Expression
Interactive Designer (aka Sparkle), which would be considerable more
difficult and costly to develop unless they use .NET. it is likely that any
future new Microsoft developed apps will be .NET based.