Re: I really hate .NET especially inside Delphi

Brian Moelk wrote:


Certainly, but imagine what would have happened if Delphi was simply
Turbo Pascal for Windows? Can't break backward compatibility with my
DOS-based ASCII form applications.... ;)


So don't use Delphi in the BDS, use C#. Or move over to VS. Others
(the vast majority it seems) like what they have done. Would borland
rather sell one professional copy to you or 100s or 1000s to others
that like the way it is.


The point is that there are times when one must break the past to
forge the future. I believe .NET is one of those times.

And if Borland wanted to move Delphi forward into .NET, and I think
they *needed* to do so, a far better strategy would be to have a
mixed mode compiler. This wouldn't force porting one's entire
application, libraries and third party components to .NET, but would
enable use of the .NET framework in a piecemeal/a-la-carte fashion.

For changes, are we talking about the uses clause? Or namespace?
Personally, I don't have a problem with how Delphi makes a namespace
from a unit name (in D2006). Once you understand it, then it is very
simple. And it not that hard to understand. The uses clause I
would not change. I like the way it works giving the compiler
enough info to build properly and me not having to maintain a
separate "project" or make file.

I don't necessarily have a problem with it, like I've said before it's
an elegant-ish hack given what they wanted to do with Delphi. My
point is that the whole strategy is flawed. IOW, it's an ok solution
to a problem that shouldn't have been solved.

If Borland saw your point and hired you on today to fix the problem,
would you then jump in and create your Uber language that fits your
world then try to sell it to the millions that actully rely on that
backwards compatibility "hacks" that they have in place? Again, VS is
waiting for you here.


Why would I need the .cs source if I have the assembly? Why would I
need the assembly if I had the source? Perhaps I'm not following what
the problem is here. Note: when I say need, it's purely from a use
perspective.

Again, you are not answering questions posted to you. Just begining
new rants. You said C# was decoupled. I was pointing out that it
wasnt.

FMPOV, it's all about design concepts and the fact that one is
deployment vs. code design is irrelevant. There are design principles
that are pervasive in all aspects of design.

huh? gibberish. I was trying to point out, what you were considering
design and what I do were different. Mine must be wrong because its
different. However, I dont consider project/make symantecs design.
Design is the relationship between the classes and code where the work
is done. A good design could be implemented in different environments
regardless of how the files are linked together and compiled. imo.


--

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Design documents versus prototypes
    ... Then I got a bollocking for not producing design documents so that the ... I had taken the requirements document and used the RAD power of Delphi ... I said, this is an heterogenous system, and when I built the prototype, ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Delphi to C#?
    ... you can design easy to maintain, ... Not all apps need a fully-fledged business object model. ... I never spent the time figuring out if this was even possible in Delphi, ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Slow and ugly Java GUIs are programmers fault
    ... >>It seems to me that most Java IDE that currently exist are focused ... > on par with what little I tried Delphi. ... Well, if you're satisfied with JBuilder, that's fine with me. ... An example is the fact that all the GUI design in JBuilder is stored as ...
    (comp.lang.java.gui)
  • Re: Delphi to C#?
    ... WinForms allows binding of controls directly to properties of objects, something that Delphi cannot yet cope with; in fact, .NET allows controls to be the datasource for other controls. ... There is a whole different design ethic behind .NET compared to Win32; most importantly that *everything* in .NEt is essentially an object whereas in Delphi for Win32 methods it is not yet possible to have every type assignable to a common type of variable/field like System.Object, thus providing useful common methods like ToString. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: I really hate .NET especially inside Delphi
    ... but imagine what would have happened if Delphi was simply ... Can't break backward compatibility with my ... I don't have a problem with how Delphi makes a namespace ... Seperate from design. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)