Re: Borland Layoffs?

From: Will DeWitt Jr. (edge_at_boink.net)
Date: 12/28/03 

Date: 27 Dec 2003 16:17:50 -0700

Captain Jake wrote:

> > a. Optimization of the Floating point output would give a speedup
> > of 1,000% there.
> That's assuming that they could match the Intel compiler.

So now Borland should not try simply because someone else has already
done it better? If that's the case, using your logic, Borland should
cease all business operations and call it a day.

> > b. Support for AMD64
> This will be in .NET so it would be redundant in Win32.

No, it won't. Native 64-bit code generation will not be possible with
Delphi 8 or any other .NET version of Delphi. .NET applications will
be effectively recompiled (as they are on Win32), but that's not the
same as true native 64-bit compiliation-- you still need the .NET
Framework installed.

> > c. Inline functions
> The optimizer often quietly does this for you. In addition, the
> register calling convention makes this somewhat moot.

As Frank already pointed out, this is in fact false. The compiler
never inlines any code except compiler magic code (rarely) and
obviously the operator code when it can (the arithmetic operators when
applied to the varying integer types).

> > d. UNICODE support
> Again, this will be in .NET so it would be redundant in Win32.

Again, false, because .NET amounts to probably less than 10% of the
market right now. I suppose because GCC on Linux supports Unicode we
should also say it would be redundant for Delphi for Win32.

> > e. Some nasty bugs fixed
> This is a legitimate concern IMHO.

At least you agreed on one point.

> > f. support COFF so that we can link with MS C++
> That would have been good years ago. Now it would be too little too
> late.

Yes, because you've been spoon-fed the .NET hype and you've digested it
whole. The propoganda machine has worked wonders on you for something
that has yet to prove itself in the wider market. When you can show me
true data indicating that .NET has more than 50% of the marketplace,
then I'll agree that adding COFF support (or 64-bit native compiliation
support, etc) is "too little too late". Until that time, it's just
hype.

Will

Relevant Pages

  • Re: usual nontechnical issues
    ... statements of Borland. ... If backwards compatibility was such a big problem, ... I am not so sure about Delphi. ... Delphi 8 for dotNet contains a brand new compiler! ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: What Id Like to See in Delphi
    ... Delphi probably has been given new legs by the buyout. ... See desktop market at: ... Well, for parallel programming I, for one, certainly feel the need of a VM simply because the actual CPU architecture is far from the way in which humans deal with the reality which is parallel. ... with the compiler doing any housekeeping needed to let C++ ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Future of Delphi 7.x - need official word from Borland
    ... of the IDE is Borland innovation. ... The Delphi for .NET compiler is entirely Borland's design as it compiles ... The language has evolved with much more than just that, ... So retro-fitting new .NET language features into the Win32 compiler doesn't ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • An alternative future for the native Delphi compiler <LONG-ISH>
    ... An idea to secure the future of Delphi ... to open source the Win32 compiler :-) ... solution for the Delphi community as a ... And all this at no cost to Borland as ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Windows XP Professional x64 Edition ---> Delphi 2005 x64 Edition?
    ... With this said, within 12 to 18 months, the target market ... > B. Additionally, the platform owner ... > C demonstrates the need for a 64bit compiler. ... Wash DC Delphi SIG Chairperson ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)