Re: Already "too late" for x64 development

Brian Moelk wrote:

>> We see that 'key point', but it only becomes relevant if the C++
>> guys actually have customers who want or need 64-bit applications.
>> Certainly there are some who do, but there are a great many who do
>> not, who are happy with Win32, and who have no plans to migrate to
>> 64-bit platforms in the forseeable future.

> It's not quite that simple for a tools vendor like Borland.

True. However, I don't think this specific sub-thread was about
Borland. It seemed like the discussion was oriented towards 'common
developers', if there is such a thing. Folks like you, me, and the
other regulars here.

The blog in question claims that we're behind the game if we're not
already developing for 64-bit. In my opinion, that's incorrect, and the
reasons MA gave to support it are fatally flawed. If there is no demand
from my customers for 64-bit applications, it's completely irrelevant
to me if a C++ coder can already create 64-bit applications. His
ability to do so doesn't matter, since no one is buying them.

And before someone raises the objection, I'm well aware that for
certain high-end applications, there is a market right now for 64-bit
applications. But none of *my* customers are asking for it, which is
all that matters to me. I suspect many/most of the regulars here are in
the same situation.


> It's arguable that they have more of a need to be on the cutting
> edge of the industry adoption cycle than the rest of the industry.

Don't misunderstand me - I absolutely think Borland should be pursuing
Win64 capabilities, for all the same reasons you give. One day I will
want 64-bit Delphi, first probably just to play with it on my own
machine, but eventually because my customers will demand it - just as
they demand 32-bit rather than 16-bit now.

I think that day is at least a couple of years off, but I hope that
when it arrives Borland will already have a well-established, working
Delphi64 ready to install.

I also confess some confusion as to why there would be any hesitation
on Borland's part. I freely admit I don't know squat about compiler
design, but my impression was that jumping from 16-bit Delphi 1 to
32-bit Delphi 2 was relatively easy. Is the leap from 32- to 64-bit a
lot more involved?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Delphi2005 BETA
    ... I take it it's a matter of Borland ... Delphi 2005 - Compact Framework Support? ... find that very few have plans to develop CF applications. ... How can I transition my development teams to .NET (ASP.NET ranks at the ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: The warning about Borland IDEs has started
    ... applications are options as well, ... a small vendor goes after the customer base of a vendor that ... Delphi, and oh, by the way RealBasic may be a good option. ... This is a lot like what I had expected to see from Borland ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Delphi or C#
    ... > and are content to keep their existing, native Delphi applications ... > folk at Borland to keep up with the Redmond machine. ... People are able to use the MS beta period as time to ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Portus Group: update (PortusConnect)
    ... We also managed to add feature to PortusConnect that our customers ... We are still selling licenses on a per-server model, so customers are ... we have delivered applications on both Windows ... Portus Group is also an authorized reseller of the Artisoft TeleVantage ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: Dvorak on Microsoft and .NET
    ... writing a new applications is there any reason not to go .NET? ... MS Visual Studio and that includes Delphi users. ... And when Borland will be ready to release .NET 2 support, ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)