Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?
From: Jim Cooper (jim.cooper_at_virgin.net)
Date: 10/27/04
- Next message: Jan Mitrovics: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Previous message: Thomas Miller: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- In reply to: Danijel Tkalcec: "Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Next in thread: Danijel Tkalcec: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Reply: Danijel Tkalcec: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 18:21:16 +0100
> how many Delphi developers are thinking about moving to M$
> Visual Studio and C# rather then staying with Borland Delphi 2005?
I already work with both Delphi and VS/C# - which I use depends on my
clients
> From what I saw until now, Borland is going to lose this "battle" with M$
Borland have always "lost" in the sense that more people used VS than
Delphi. As long as Borland can make moeny from Delphi that is a pretty
irrelevant point though.
> **** Instead of that, they could have modified the VCL components internally
> to map either to Win or to the Linux version and keep it transparent for the
> end-user, by adding a simple "compile for Linux" option in the compiler.
If it was actually that simple, I'm sure they would have done that. As
it happens, mapping visual components across OSes is not that simple.
Besides the actual looks and behaviour differences, there are also
internal ways of working that change and that make a big difference to
people inheriting from those components.
> 3. When they saw Kylix was a "mistake" (the general idea was good
The general idea was completely dumb, IMO. They would have been better
off spending the time on Windows (W32,.NET etc) products where they
could actually make some money.
> 4. Last year, they decided it's "about time" to drop Win32
But they didn't decide to drop Win32, did they? C#Builder (which you
forgot), D8 and now D2005 are a progression, changing from the old IDE
to a new one. It was easiest to do C#Builder first, as they didn't have
to worry about the compiler too much (it's in the .NET framework) and
could concentrate on the new IDE, then move the Delphi language across
to .NET, then finally build in support for the Win32 compiler in the new
IDE as well (D2005 has significant IDE enhancements over D7 or D8, BTW).
> how many of you moved from D7 to D8 and have applications running under .NET?
This question completely misses the point. Many new technologies from MS
will only have .NET interfaces - there will not be Win32 APIs for them.
Borland have no choice but to support .NET if they want to continue
building development tools for Windows. If you've been following things
at all in that regard, you'll have noticed that building that support
takes time, so Borland cannot wait x years until ".NET is popular
enough" - they have to start building that support now (anyway, for web
apps, .NET is already pretty big now, BTW)
Note also that in the .NET world you can change IDEs without necessarily
changing compilers. I for one am not overly impressed with the VS .NET
IDE - it's slow, buggy, and badly designed in many places. There is room
in the market for a significantly better IDE.
> what's the point?
Surely it's better for Borland to only have the one IDE to support? And
some of us do use the different compilers, BTW. Maybe not for the same
project, although I can imagine using C# and DFDN in the same one.
> There's no way you can design your application to be
> compileable for both "worlds" (Win32 and NET).
There is also little point doing that. .NET is an API, not a new OS.
You're still writing Windows apps either way. Of course, one day you
will need to access a .NET only facility, but that's probably a way off
yet.
> My idea is to define a component base, which will encapsulate most VCL, .NET
> and CLX (visual and non-visual) components with all properties that exist in
> all three worlds, into one unified component library.
Off you go then :-) I don't think it's as easy as all that. Note that
not only do the public interfaces need to be the same, but the protected
ones as well. In many cases, the order in which things happen internally
is important too (eg message order).
> .NET is a long way from being stable and who knows when it will become
> stable enough for sensitive bussiness applications.
What do you mean not stable? I'm using it right now for a "sensitive
business application" and it's fine.
> Win32 is here, Linux is here.
.NET is here too, but it's comparing apples and oranges to compare it to
Linux. It's an API, not a new OS.
> If there was a possibility to write applications that seamlessly
> compile for Win32, Linux or .NET
I wouldn't solve any problem I have ever had, actually, although it
might be useful for some.
> What do you, as developers, think about this?
I think it's a lot harder than you seem to think it is. If you think you
can do it, go ahead, but it has been tried already...
Cheers,
Jim Cooper
_______________________________________________
Jim Cooper jim@falafelsoft.com
Falafel Software http://www.falafelsoft.co.uk
_______________________________________________
- Next message: Jan Mitrovics: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Previous message: Thomas Miller: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- In reply to: Danijel Tkalcec: "Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Next in thread: Danijel Tkalcec: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Reply: Danijel Tkalcec: "Re: Win32, Linux, .NET >> Where is this mess going to?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
