Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years.
From: Chris Grant (cjgrant_aaa_at_bigpond.net.au)
Date: 06/21/04
- Next message: Eric Grange: "Re: Make Garbage Collection Optional Then I Will Shut Up"
- Previous message: Bruce McGee: "Re: Delphi T-Shirts & Mugs"
- In reply to: Dennis Landi: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Next in thread: John Herbster: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Reply: John Herbster: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Reply: Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Reply: Oliver Townshend: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 21 Jun 2004 05:33:07 -0700
...Yawn...
Dennis Landi wrote:
> John Herbster's Question:
> > Have you ever wondered about how to build a long lived
> > programs with modern tools? Which present day technologies
> > do we need to use for programs intended to last 25 years
> > with minimal maintenance? And what can we do we plan for
> > the transition at their eventual replacement?
>
> ------
>
> "John Kaster (Borland)" <johnk@borland.com> wrote in message
> news:40d664e6@newsgroups.borland.com...
> > Dennis Landi in <40d633f5$1@newsgroups.borland.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Are you addressing John's question? I don't believe you are, but I
> > > was.
> >
>
> > If you care to spell out how your concern for a 64-bit Delphi compiler
> > (support for one future platform) relates to John's question, I'm sure
> > people here can explain how there are surer ways to guarantee the
> > compatibility of your Delphi code for future computing platforms.
> >
>
> Assuming you have actually asked a sincere question I will attempt a sincere
> answer.
>
> Its very simple, and I can illustrate with my own current dilemma.
>
> Scenario: It has become evident that there is and excellent chance that
> Borland will not upgrade its Delphi product based on the Win32 platform with
> a Delphi version based on the identical Win64 platform, (despite mine and
> few others best efforts to raise awareness on the issue). Furthermore the
> only language that I see as secure against the threat of the whims of a
> single proprietary vendor; while enjoying universal penetration on all
> platforms is C++. Now, my recent survey of state of the art C++ culture (by
> surveying the leading authors in the community) suggests that it may take me
> up to two years to fully master C++ to the same level I am currently at with
> Delphi. This is an important data point.
>
> Nevertheless, I am at a point where I need to reassess my own plans. There
> are some new products that I want to release in a few months. Based on
> on-going preparation over preceding years, some products will require
> "minimal" effort and I can see the benefits of truly planning their
> obsolescence within 5 years depending on the uptake of Longhorn and my own
> mastery of C++. These short-lived products and will have easily justified
> their existence with the revenue they have generated during that time, and
> hopefully it will be enough to justify their rewrite in C++ in 3 to 5 years
> from now, if that makes sense to do so at that point in time.
>
> But... I have another major product for which I had planned a start on
> development. I estimate it will take me two years to build, with a planned
> life-time of 10 to 15 years, and there is the rub. I don't see .NET as a
> suitable technology for this product as it requires optimal performance; nor
> am I ready to believe that Delphi.NET will absolutely be around 5 to 10
> years from now. In terms of performance, I see Delphi or C++ as a suitable
> platform. But two years from now, Delphi/Win32, without a direct upgrade
> path to Win64 (note: the explicit and obvious 64-bit connection, JK !!),
> will be "deprecated" technology at that point. So I just don't see how it
> would make sense to start development now on a product with a technology
> that will be obsolete by the time I am done. That's truly a problem for
> me. I still haven't completely decided what to do. At this point, I see no
> alternative but to delay development on this product. The ACE C++
> communications framework seems like a perfect replacement for Delphi Sockets
> frameworks; and I feel encouraged by this. But I still need some proof of
> concept work to build further confidence that I am on the right track. But,
> needless to say, all this directly addresses by John Herbster's question.
>
> <<Have you ever wondered about how to build a long lived programs with
> modern tools?>>
>
> Yes!!!!
>
> <<Which present day technologies do we need to use for programs intended to
> last 25 years
> with minimal maintenance?>>
>
> Good question!
>
> C++ (based) technology looks like the only viable candidate on the horizon.
> It is relatively immune to the whims, blindness and mistakes of single
> vendors with control of a language who don't necessarily have the best
> interests of that language in mind when making business decisions. Bottom
> line, trusting one's future to a language that is OWNED by a single
> commercial entity is a BAD IDEA for long-term projects that require massive
> investment up-front and then are intended to exist as living/breathing
> products for a decade or longer.
>
> << And what can we do we plan for the transition at their eventual
> replacement?>>
>
> Think ahead! Make your best efforts to see the future! If you are using a
> proprietary language OWNED by a single vendor, then make your best effort to
> get answers to questions on the future of that language. Does the vendor
> plan to expand the language's presence on hardware platforms, or shrink it?
> Or abandon it altogether? Is the vendor making logical moves with that
> language. I.E. Given a Win32-based Delphi, are they taking the next
> logical step and releasing Win64 based version? Or are they refusing to
> say anything? And why would that be? Keeping their options open? Hmm.
> Is that a good enough basis for your own business decisions?
>
> > > plan for the transition at their eventual replacement
>
> Yes, this is a must.
>
> 1) Ascertain the lay of the land. What is the estimated longevity of
> "Technology X".
> 2) At the point of obsolescence, make your best efforts to ascertain the
> projected state of the Technology Milieu at that future point in time.
> 3) Attempt to weigh in the balance maintaining (bandaging) deprecated
> technology against the cost/benefits of developing the new replacement.
>
> 4) Reiterate steps 1 -3, on an on-going basis. Never deny new facts as they
> emerge, but incorporate them into your planning.
>
> 5) At the end of the day, the software developer needs to assess to what
> extent his/her investments in time/energy/money/source-code has been
> protected.
>
> Is your code-based expendable? To what extent? Surely its expendability is
> directly related to the investment of time/money/effort invested to create
> it. What are the threats to that investment? Is your codebase dependant
> upon the whims/decisions of a single vendor? This could be a problem.
> Attempt to get some answers from that vendor in regard to the longevity and
> security of your codebase. If you don't like the answers, an adjustment in
> plans may be in order.
>
> Now, JK. I guess you can continue you rather unimaginative attacks on me as
> a Thread-jacker; and thereby entirely sidetracking the thread (ironically).
> Or you can just stay quiet, as you have now really nothing of worth to
> contribute to the discussion. Or you can make sincere attempt to address
> these points.
>
> And btw, last time I checked you are a Borland representative, so I will
> assume you speak for Borland unless you insert the necessary caveats.
>
> From my perspective Delphi/Win32 has about 3 years of solid life left in it
> as a vital platform. For projects within that time-frame many short-lived
> projects can be executed. After that? Who knows? Each developer will have
> to survey the technology landscape and make their best efforts to see the
> future.
>
> JK, is there an appropriate V.P. at Borland I could forward this message to?
> What would the his/her email address be?
>
>
>
> -d
-- ==================================================================== To email me remove the obvious
- Next message: Eric Grange: "Re: Make Garbage Collection Optional Then I Will Shut Up"
- Previous message: Bruce McGee: "Re: Delphi T-Shirts & Mugs"
- In reply to: Dennis Landi: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Next in thread: John Herbster: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Reply: John Herbster: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Reply: Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Reply: Oliver Townshend: "Re: My longest lived program retired after 22 years."
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
