Re: Turbo Delphi... Why ? :(

Wayne Niddery [TeamB] wrote:

Muzaffar Mahkamov wrote:

I see no reason in having .NET and Native compilers in one package,
unless for evaluation purposes. Developers know for sure what
language will they be using - C++, Delphi Win32, C# or Delphi .NET.
So they'll be able to "build" an IDE based on their needs.

So you will never need to use more than one language at a time?

I maintain work I've done for a number of clients and also continue
to do new work. I have .Net projects in the planning stage now but
will still need to continue maintaining some Win32 projects for quite
some time to come. I have successfully moved a couple of those
projects into BDS 2006 so that I can enjoy the same new features
maintaining those as I have for new development (and as an added
bonus, my customers get better performance with new compiles of their
existing apps!).

The thing is, BDS satisfies some of our customers needs, and Turbos
another set of needs. In addition - NEW developers and students how
have a very good path to getting exposed to the rich BDS IDE and Delphi
language.

So now folks will have some options:

a) Professional developers with complex projects and large teams need
the full work horse currently known as BDS. Delphi and C++ work? BDS.
Delphi to .NET ? BDS.

b) Single language programming efforts can use a Turbo Professional for
a economical rate.

c) Students and those interested in exploring just what Delphi is, and
what it can do for them, can grab either the Explorer edition, or
academic priced Professional with low risk. Delphi to me is still a
wonderful language to start learning about object oriented and database
development on, and Delphi.NET is vastly under-rated IMO. Delphi.NET is
such a good bridge for Win32 to .NET...

d) all sorts of types users I can't think of at this exact moment that
may have specific language/platform/budget requirements.

For the development team, as long as we keep the code base same between
BDS and Turbos, and the differentiator is what we deliver from the
feature set and customers are not forced into paying for premium
features they will never use. This is exactly the sort of win/win
situation we all want.

--
Chris Pattinson
QA Manager, DevCo, Developer Studio
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Turbo: A great idea, not properly thought through... ?
    ... currently possible under Delphi 2006. ... My experience is that people prefer one language + one ... I think it is important to get Delphi BDS away from the VS ... Seems the Turbo line misses the point in two key areas: ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Focus needs clarity and commitment
    ... Part of the point, AFAIU, is that BDS is the 'way' ... all of those additional language tools are also ... No others compete directly with Delphi, now presumably Turbo Delphi. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Delphi Product Manager questioned
    ... To me the choice of Delphi is effectively a "lock-in" to Windows ... because adoption might take 6 months to a year that BDS can afford to ... Developers need time to learn new things and to figure ... MS can just kill interop when they want and then it's going to be ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: A VB6 fan asks... why do YOU stick with VB6???
    ... and developers. ... I also agree that they can do far more with Delphi to ... used years ago as a teaching language and they let that go completely. ... simply because things "fit" better into the whole. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Turbo Delphi... Why ? :(
    ... developers that were the key target for Borland for the past few years. ... complexity fo the BDS. ... What are differences between Delphi 200x and Turbo Delphi? ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)