Re: More fuel for the 64-bit fire ...
- From: "a" <blwatters@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:40:18 -0700
> I agree its a lot of work, but wouldnt it be worth it?
a) You can get to 64bit using .NET without a lot of
work on need to port the entire IDE.
b) The market for 64bit desktop applications has
to be rather small since few companies are going to
use 64bit for anything but server stuff for many years.
There is little point making a powerful 64bit desktop
application when almost no company is going to
standardize on 64bit desktop -- and applications --
until next decade. Cost of upgrading everyone to
64bit hardware and software would be insane for
most large companies. Many benefits of 64bit
just aren't needed today on the desktop. Lots of
companies still use Win2000 and Office2000 and
have not even gone XP yet.
c) Most server stuff isn't going to need a fancy IDE
or run desktop apps.
d) Even if they had a 64-bit IDE and compiler, VCL,
then they would run into all the 3rd-party control,
library, API, and other issues.
e) Even if they had a 64-bit system, backwards
compatibility is a major problem. Any desktop
app would need to be compiled for both 64 and 32
bit to be marketable.
f) All this work takes away from other development
work. Is it worth delaying D2006 by a year while
they write a beta D2008-64 compiler? Borland is
correct in having it's next goal a good, stable, next
If Borland wants to look at native 64bit output for
just the language, that might be a better goal. For
example, an option in the 32-bit IDEs to output
basic stuff to 64-bit would be useful. One could
then write utilities, services, DLLs, etc. and target
them for 64-bit.
- Prev by Date: Re: Is there a future for Borland in .NET?
- Next by Date: Re: Is there a future for Borland in .NET?
- Previous by thread: Re: More fuel for the 64-bit fire ...
- Next by thread: Re: More fuel for the 64-bit fire ...