Interbase And Kylix Details From Borland/Inprise Con 144
"The conference opened with a "Matrix" themed intro, and there have been blue and red jellybeans all over the place. The major announcement at the intro was that JBuilder will be ported to Mac OS X, with full support for Aqua. The press release is here.
Paul Beach, Interbase VP of marketing and sales, gave a very informative talk. It's very clear that he has a clue. Many of his talking points were interchangeable with what Bob Young would say, asked similar questions. He even alluded to the tired old Heinz ketchup analogy to explain brand equity. Interbase's plan is to sell support contracts and box sets, just like the other big open source companies. Paul is very realistic and down-to-earth about what they expect to happen. I think they are going to do very well indeed.
The most startling revelation, though, was that Interbase 6.0 is done and ready to ship the manuals and CDs are duplicated and printed and sitting in boxes. He even brought a box of CDs to the talk. Reading between the lines, it seems like these CDs have been sitting around for some time. But Dale Fuller (Inprise CEO), who also showed up at the Interbase product address, will not permit the CDs to be distributed until all the contracts are signed and executed and appropriately lawyered. Dale promised, both at the opening keynote and at the Interbase talk, that the contracts would be done and the product would ship within two weeks. Here's hoping he holds himself accountable to that promise.
Many details about Kylix have been revealed. Kylix is installed on several machines in the lab, but unfortunately these machines are off the net, so you can't steal a copy (darnit). The IDE was demoed at one of the talks, but it wasn't in the lab. What was on the lab machines was the command-line Delphi compiler only. It seems quite solid. I played around with it, built some projects that displayed various forms and controls, that sort of thing. As expected, the compiler is blindingly fast, builds genuine native executables, and looks very similar to Delphi on Windows. The new class libraries, called CLX, are very nearly 100% source-compatible with the Delphi VCL. The CLX visual components are wrappers around QT, and will be available on Windows as well in Delphi 6, so if you code to CLX you will be cross-platform. Kylix builds fully compliant QT apps, with KDE-style theming and all the bells and whistles. As with all QT/KDE apps, you can run a Kylix-developed app under Gnome but it isn t seamless for purposes of theming or UI consistency.
Kylix will, of course, be closed-source, closed-process, proprietary, and will have a price notably divergent from zero. The initial release will be Delphi standard and professional, followed quite quickly by C++ standard and professional. The enterprise version of Kylix will be called "Kylix Studio" (or similar) and will include both compilers in a single SKU. Someone in the audience suggested that they do a combined SKU under Windows as well, which got a lot of applause. At the opening keynote, Dale said that a major goal for Kylix is to make it possible for developers to release their own projects under any license, including full-strength GPL. This is a worthy objective, but I'm not sure Borland truly understands the ramifications. Then again, I'm not sure I do myself. What would it mean to have a GPL project, but you have to use a proprietary compiler to build it? Presumably the compiler libraries will be proprietary, and you have to link with them if you want a usable binary. This bears thinking about.
For database access from Kylix, there's a new library called dbDirect. Or perhaps it's called dbExpress. And I think it might also be called DataCLX, or perhaps DataCLX is a superset including dbDirect plus other things. Anyway, whatever it's called, it's a new library that lets applications talk to databases in a consistent way just like the BDE. But unlike the BDE, it tries to be as 'thin' as possible, bringing the application code as close as feasible to the native database vendor APIs while still providing relatively good code portability. With the BDE, Borland has to write a complex driver for every new database they support. With dbDirect, it's a simple matter of wrapping a few vendor API calls. Application developers can mix and match calls to dbDirect with calls to native database APIs. dbDirect will also have a tiny footprint compared to the BDE, including the ability to statically link right into the application. DataCLX will be the only database API in Kylix, and will ship in Delphi 6 side by side with the traditional BDE setup.
Kylix will also include a web broker architecture, very similar to what's in Delphi 5 today. Where Delphi web modules can compile to traditional CGIs or ISAPIs, Kylix web modules will compile to traditional CGIs or Apache modules. The level of integration between Kylix and Apache is impressive. This part of things is called NetCLX and also includes the usual socket components and TCP-suite stuff like telnet, smtp, etc.
In addition to the Borland announcements, there are a few dozen vendors on the trade show floor. Big names include Sun, Caldera, Linuxcare and Cobalt. Corel is pointedly absent. And of course we have the usual gang of third-party component vendors people like TurboPower, Woll2Woll, Raize, Digial Metaphors, etc. Everyone seems to be planning to port their tools to Linux, promising release dates from a couple weeks to a couple months after Kylix ships.
The bottom line is, I'll be coming home empty-handed. No Kylix beta, no Interbase source. But I have a very strong sense that the Delphi community is gathering behind Kylix in a big way, and I'm very pleased to see Interbase poised on the verge of release. Just get those contracts signed, Dale!"
Cross compiler (Score:1)
In other words, I'd like to be able to build Windows apps from a Linux PC, and vice-versa.
In fact, what I'd really like to see is more platforms supported, but I guess for now I should be happy that they're supporting more than just the one...
Danger of Kylix (Score:3)
Kylix is one of the most dangerous pieces of software to come to Linux. One of the big differences between Windows and Linux has been that Linux has one compiler (gcc) and open libraries so that everyone can compile everything. Kylix breaks that since now Kylix owners can compile software that I cannot. This will cause a split in the devoloper community that will make QT/GTK seem like a friendly gathering. Kylix forces developers to either ignore software or develop with non-free software.
Kylix creates software that can only be compiled with non-free software.
Re:We already know it (Score:1)
Yes, but that's how long it took him to type this post...
Re:Open Source Free Pascal Compiler is available (Score:1)
None of these what you call "click-and-drool delphi converts" will ever get into contact with interfaces - because interfaces are only useful for designing.
Oh, wait. You don't know what design is about! It's about maintainability, abstraction, modelling, separation of interface (sic!) and implementation...
You want me to add it? Fine - please send over the food, pay my rent and my Internet access charges. Trust me, I could do that (and much more).
Delphi Compile Speed (Score:2)
Unlike Microsoft's products, Delphi (upon which Kylix is based) has a solid reputation for having an extremely high-speed compiler.
Bear in mind that the Pascal language is designed to be compiled in one pass, vs C/C++ which is not. Even in some decent-sized Delphi projects, each with several dozen source files (>50,000 lines total), I don't ever recall waiting for more than 3-5 seconds to do a complete build, and that's in full GUI mode with all of the bells and whistles (code optimization, &c.) turned on. Projects of equivelant complexity written in C++ have had build times of 3-5 minutes on the same machine. Considering the quality of code generated, the compile speed of Delphi is simply unreal. Since it's basically the same language and underlying compiler technology, I'd expect Kylix to be equally fast, if not faster due to lack of Windoze overhead.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not knocking C/C++; I use C++ as my language of choice for most projects. For those of you who haven't played around with Delphi though, I'd suggest you try a few small projects in it just so you can feel your jaw come unhinged when you see how quickly it builds. Way cool stuff.
Re:The whole article on the front page? (Score:1)
There are very few similarities to Visual Basic. (Score:2)
Well, maybe, Delphi and VB share the ability to drag and drop stuff to create a GUI, but then thats a similarity that Delphi shares with VC++ too.
But other than that, Delphi is more similar to VC++ than it is to Visual Basic.
Re:Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:2)
That said, let me comment on your posting. Since you established some credentials, let me do the same. I'm not a Delphi expert, even less a Windows expert. However, I've been working as a system administrator for 10 years and I've worked with computers at one capacity or another for over 20 years. It's from the point of view of a sys admin that I write this.
Boy does that sound like a load of bullshit, and I'm saying that as a professional Delphi 3/4/5 developer. Are you comparing this with Delphi 5? On a P-II 450 Delphi 5 (or 4 or 3) compiles all but EXTREMELY large projects in a virtual instant, so how exactly are you timing this FUD 10 times faster claim? The reality is that the demo was likely extremely simple and compiled close to instantly on both machines.
Actually I don't know which version of Delphi they used on their machine. Very unscientifically, I didn't time it. The app was a simple text editor much like MS's Notepad. It took a few minutes to compile on Windows and a few seconds to compile on Kylix. The reality was just like I described it.
Linux doesn't make the processor run any faster, and in Windows 2000 or NT 4 the processor sits at 0% when I'm not doing anything, leaving 100% for Delphi to do its thing in, so any difference between the OS' will purely be the result of the coding abilities of Borland/Inprise.
This is interesting. Considering the monitor is itself a program that must consume some CPU cycles, I think it's odd that it shows 0%. If MS came up with a way to write programs that don't consume cycles at all, that's a real achievement. More probably, though, the monitor is accounting for its own load when showing the result. I wouldn't rely on such a monitor. If it accounts for its own load, why not accounting for the OS overhead too? Heck, 'top' shows itself consuming about 1% of the CPU while Linux is doing nothing else.
The file system is unmatched in 2000 (NTFS) and the memory infrastructure is good. Having said that what would be the difference?
The file system is unmatched by whose standards? I'm yet to see an independent benchmark proving the case one way or another. It's immaterial, though. They used Win98, not 2000, for that demo.
Does Windows insert special SLOW_DOWN_OP opcodes in the instruction stream? Does Linux have special RUN_SUPER_FAST_OP opcodes? No of course it doesn't. Barring multithreaded or multiprocess issues, where 2000 is considered superior anyones, there'll be no real difference.
Again, considered superior by whom? Again, immaterial. It was 98, not 2000.
What you seem to be saying, however, is that there never should be a difference in performance between different operating systems because no OS makes the processor run slower or faster. Now that, if you excuse me for paraphrasing your opening remark, is what sounds like a load of bullshit. I won't bother to explain why.
The operating system is a facilitator, it isn't an interpreter.
Exactly. Think about what that means and you may understand what I didn't bother to explain in the last paragraph.
Cheers.
I like Becker better.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:The whole article on the front page? (Score:1)
Produce BSD executables? (Score:1)
I mean, I can run Linux executables on my FreeBSD machine, but I'd like it nevertheless.
Another idea might be an option to integrate different compilers in the background (i.e. put a gcc somewhere beneath it). Of course, compiling code would be slower by several degrees of magnitude, but one might write stuff on Linux or BSD and then produce applications for any platform that QLX and/or Qt is available for... and seeing that usually Borland libraries are compilable with Borland tools, one might consider porting the QLX layer as well, thus unleashing a wave of applications not only for Linux, but for practically every OS that supports Qt. This would be really nice.
(Brazilian) Portuguese translation (Score:2)
Re:Danger of Kylix (Score:1)
I completely disagree with you. Kylix and gcc have completely different markets, and will therefore not cause problems for each other.
Kylix will be sold to people who want to play with a nice friendly VisualBastic-type environment; GCC will be used by developers.
Kylix will be sold to people already using Delphi and VisualBastic, to allow existing apps to be ported to Linux which would otherwise never would have appeared; GCC is for developers.
Kylix will be used by companies looking for a short learning curve for training people; CGG is used by developers.
But the big difference is that Kylix will primarily be used to write closed-source proprietary applications. You won't get GCC people getting angry about not being able to compile Kylix code as you claim, because there won't be that much Kylix code out there for them to compile.
And no, I don't have a problem with people writing closed source apps for Linux. In some cases - especially low-volume vertical market apps - closed source is pretty much a requirement. And even where it isn't, you're not going to change a company's business policy overnight.
Re:CNN story here (and it is shorter) (Score:1)
So thanks for the laughs and long live Don Knotts, the goofiest looking guy on the planet.
Re:Danger of Kylix (Score:1)
Re:Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:3)
Regarding speed; if the Kylix you could play with was command line only then I would be very surprised if it wasn't fast - I know from experience that several hundred thousand lines of Delphi code compile in seconds on a bog standard development machine, inside the IDE. So using the command line compiler should be that quick, whether on Windows or Linux.
In fact, having grown into large scale programming using (BP7 then) Delphi and then Java, being forced in my current job to use C++ and waiting ages for compilation and then linking annoys me intensely. Luckily the C++ is only a small part of the job and I use Java most of the time - code, compile, test, repeat every 2 minutes or so leads to far higher quality code far quicker, and just isn't possible if it takes more than a couple of seconds to compile.
~Cederic
The whole article on the front page? (Score:1)
Re: Re: That's why they invented RPMs. (Score:1)
Installshield is only available for Windows and Java (at the present time).
Re: "...I will never understand the need some people have to find one little grain of sand on the ocean shore that they just can't live with..."
I am not 'picking out grains of sand,' I am objecting to a _very_serious_ danger to the community.
Recently, I had a chance to hear Linus and Maddog speak at a developers' conference here in Chicago. Linus was asked by a -somewhat- savvy newsman (she used 'fork' in context) whether the chances of a fork in the source tree represented a serious danger to the OSS community and to the concept of 'the Cathedral and the Bazaar.' Linus' response was to the effect of 'I and the FSF control the code. Anytime I want, I can prune the code tree and eliminate forks.' This was fine when we had the public compiler, gcc. But with Kylix, due to the popularity of Delphi/Pascal and the proprietary libraries, (and in accord with my understanding of the GPL), this is the road down which Microsoft (the 'embrace and extend' guys, remember?) wants us to go down (see the 'Halloween Document' for details). It is the road the commercial *nixes went down, to their doom. Should this tool be commonly used by the community, we run the risk of fragmentation, just like the commercial *nixes, because of the structure of the GPL.
Re: "...When you try to say that one whatever is better than all others of it's type you are, in essence, espousing the same position that Billy-Boy used to make the latest Great Monoply. If you have to have a winner you are missing the whole point of life.."
I _don't_ have to have a winner. I never said which distro or tools I support. I was simply pointing out, in my first post, what RPMs were originally for (initial installs of OS and necessary tools, as well as an easy way to update them, until something better comes along) and then making a point about the _true_ power and responsibilities inherent in our community.
Personally, I use an FTP install of Mandrake and strip out as much of the non-GPL-licensed stuff as I can. I will continue to do so until the GNU/FSF gives me an alternative.
Since you said that you intend to buy Kylix, please, if you would speak as a programmer, let us know the weaknesses in gcc and the tools available under the GPL. Thank you, and BTW, nice quote from 'Rush.'
Re: Re: That's why they invented RPMs. (Score:1)
Hmmm, you're right, they can't. I just took the gist of the original story to mean that Borland would release a tool based on proprietary, non-GPL code and libraries.
re: "...Perhaps it's time to wait for the tool to be released and then see whether it is fit for GPL, LGPL, QPL, or whatever-else-OSS licence development?.."
_Not_ if the tool will be widely used to contribute to the source trees of the kernel or the _essential_ tools.
Re: "...I have very good reason to be convinced that Borland fully understand the concerns of the Open Source community...." and "...I have very good reason to speculate that the Open Source community will be happy with what Borland delivers - *once the tool is ready for release*..."
Please share your reasons. I base my points on Borland/Inprise's past history and violation of the Java Community License and their present price points (and the inclusions in) for JBuilder.
Re:Why seperate Delphi & Kylix (Score:1)
The thing to remember here is that Kylix is a project, not a product. It's kind of a subtle distinction. Which is why even the Borland people keep forgetting it.
Re:yes, lots of Windows programmers (Score:1)
Could you be so kind as to name some of these programs?
Surely this applies only to the Delphi users who make software you don't like to use anyway? Afterall, if most of the windows apps are made with C++ the C++ users will have no problem adjusting to linux (they just choose not to). The Delphi users are all anxious to migrate to linux. It seems to me you simply don't want Delphi users to write software for Linux.
-- In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
Re: Re: That's why they invented RPMs. (Score:1)
Because of the original license under which the Qt libraries were released, essentially giving them a 'taking' (legal term) without recourse for developers as applied to Windows. Also, as the poster implied, closed because it is not portable across platforms (only runs on Linux/KDE). GTK-based solutions (with some diddling) can even be made to run on Windows natively. You were _not_ allowed to port your Qt-based code to Windows because of the license structure of the Qt libraries. Same was true of MySQL.
I believe, however, that the KDE tools can now be used with GTK-based GUIs (GNOME, etc.) without Qt libs and that the licensing issues, in the main have been worked out. (Somebody please correct me if I am wrong on either of these counts.)
Re: "...this nonsense."
It is _not_ 'nonsense.' Issues like this threaten the _entire_ community and the GPL, and therefor Linux and the BSD's.
Re:Delphi developers & Open source (Score:1)
I think the opensource VCL you are referring to might be the Jedi VCL which has a website here: http://www.delphi-jedi.org/Jedi:VCLVCL:578699194 [delphi-jedi.org]
In addition to your comments, many delphi developers release their code under the GPL - something which will occur much more frequently once Kylix is out I believe.
-- In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
No FP? (Score:2)
Re:Open Source Free Pascal Compiler is available (Score:1)
Well said.
I think that many people here are confusing Delphi with Visual Basic. Most Delphi developers are not drag'n'drop idiots as you can see from the wide array of Delphi apps out there - which could not be done with drag'n'drop.
-- In principio creavit Deus caelum et terram.
Go go, I/B !! (Score:1)
Dell.."We want to help develop Red Hat Linux"
IBM et al.. "If you use our product-on-Linux-steroids, we will support you"
This is the Age for Kings and Princes to Fall, And the pheasant Children to Rule the Throne...
-- Nadine Edwards
Nuff Respec'
DeICQLady
7D3 CPE
Re:I just can't get excited (Score:1)
You are just as big stupid troll as the statement above.
FUD (Score:4)
Kylix is going to be a big help to a lot of Windows-only shops that are now looking to migrate their development to Linux. Imagine; spend a few days modifying your app, and now it works on Linux. Of course, that assumed that you haven't used any COM stuff, but there are a LOT of apps that don't. Besides, in the Windows community, database access is one of the major reasons to use COM anyways. Sounds like Kylix/Delphi 6 will have that covered with the new database library. Exciting stuff.
Second, some Slashdotters are concerned about being able to only compile stuff with non-free tools. While it is true that you will have to have a copy of Kylix to compile stuff for it, I don't really see why this is an objection: lots and lots of commercial vendors are now going to be shipping stuff for Linux. This is another way to accelerate that. Perhaps some Free Software vendors can get some good usage out of it too. Who knows. I don't understand the logic behind complaining about havign more than one compiler, as one Slashdotter did. We have more than one everything else (soon, more than one kernel even.) Competition is good, right?
On a side note, what is an SKU? I haven't heard that term before, and it's use in the article stumps me. What does it mean, especially in the author's context?
Re:Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:4)
I have seen it runnin on my machine. I own a small Linux consulting company in Brasil and was invited by Borland to talk about Linux on a conference they gave for Brazilian developers. They asked me for a linux box in which they could demo Kylix, so I brought my own box. It's a PII 400 with 64 Megs. I did no scientific bechmarks on it, but the demo apps we built on Kylix compiled at least 10 times faster than the same code on their own Windows box (which was also a PII, but that's all I know about it). As a demo, we had the app up and running under Gnome while Delphi was still compiling it on the Windows side.
Unfortunately they made me uninstall Kylix before I brought the box back. No amount of pleading, cajoling or even begging would work, which is why I can't send you a pirate copy ;)
I think they probaly have a reason for not letting anybody have it, but the reason is not that they're demoing software on ridiculously overpowered CPUs or anything like that. I wouldn't call my PII ridiculously overpowered.
Delphi developers & Open source (Score:4)
Also, the robust object model basically means that if a VCL object is not up to the task, create a new task, inheret and modify. No probs. There are I believe projects out there to create open source VCL replacements, so even that aint a prob.
With the gnarled exception of the compiler being closed source (Free pascal is a worthy replacement tho) I think it's majik for the linux community. Wan't a RTF word processor? Drop in a rich text component. make some save/load/print buttons. run. work. joy. The linux revolution is afoot!
What happens if you eat the blue beans ? (Score:3)
The conference opened with a "Matrix" themed intro, and there have been blue and red jellybeans all over the place.
What happens if you eat the blue beans ?
Do you wake up in Redmond ?
Re:Turbo Pascal community and free software... (Score:1)
There's always C++ builder, which gives you benefits of Delphi (that is, VCL) without having to learn yet another language (Object Pascal) or rewrite your algorithms/background code.
Not flamebait, he has a point (Score:2)
I write with a very expensive product for the day job, so I know it well, so it's what I use in the evenings too. If a Linux developer shells out money for Kylix, then they're damn well going to use the thing!
This doesn't mean The End Of Open Source (tm), but it is a risk. There will be code written under Kylix that gets OS'ed, and this will reduce the proportion of the total that's truly freely available.
Re:Screenshots (Score:1)
Not wanting to learn a language is a poor excuse. Learning a language takes a couple of days at worst - learning the libraries and environment is what takes time, and you'd do that with their C++ environment anyway.
Back in university I used to hate Pascal and Modula-2 with a passion. Primarily because of the pedantic type-checking (having to cast a short int to a long int to use it in a function call - pah!). With Object Pascal, they fixed virtually all the things that irritated me (except boolean operator precedence), and did a pretty tidy job of the object stuff too.
But in fact for me there are 2 killer features:
- real string handling: no buffer overflows or mucking about with memory allocation. In addition, the reuse element means it's often faster then standard C-style handling. If you're doing any form of database programming you will sing the praises of this repeatedly.
- F9. This is the Run button. You push it and your program runs. Yeah it compiles it too, but you don't notice that, it's so fast. Even recompiling all source files from scratch only takes a few seconds.
So it's all very well calling it a language designed to 'teach programming', but for many purposes it is definitively superior to C or C++. I've been happy to bet my livelihood on it and it hasn't let me down.
If you really want to attack it, at least come up with coherent arguments, like these:
- by using Delphi you are reliant on one vendor to supply the tools.
- the fact that it's not as widespread as C/C++ means the support from third parties and community isn't as strong.
- pointer handling still sucks, Pascal style. It works but it ain't nice.
Component Libraries (Score:1)
Re:These guys are good (Score:1)
TP1 was a major innovation in the practice of coding, but probably would have had more respect if Borland charged 10x the $49.95 price. No tool change since has made the same kind of step difference to me personally.
SKUs, UPCs, and bar codes (Score:2)
SKU does stand for Stock Keeping Unit, but the barcode you see on "everything", i.e., most consumer products, are encoded UPCs, or Universal Product Codes. UPCs are "standard", where as SKUs are usually specific to the manufacturer or retailer you're talking to.
'Tis also worth pointing out that both UPCs and SKUs are the numbers themselves, not the barcodes used to encode them.
Re:Component Libraries (Score:1)
Most of the details and time it takes to port lie in the fact that if you built components on a well rounded component structure it would lend itself to being simple to update/port. This means seperating the api to a seperate object that is used by the component. You update the lower level that actually does the work and the logic and functionality of the rest of child objects stay in tact.
All this im sure is known by most people but its nice to re-iterate it from time to time to remind ourselfs how to design correctly. Even in the light of ever pressing demands by the boss to produce not screw with objects all day.
Most people would leave porting to the birds. This is because if you don't have any intentions of porting in the first place you probibly don't really have any need to port it at all. Most desktops are not going to suddenly switch to Linux overnight. The point of Kylix is to give you a choice of platforms. Thankfully they have also given us a thin API driven database attachment. The BDE is a hulking beast that often is too slow. Speed increases using native SQL Server api have made me blink more than twice. It will be a good thing for them to start out again with the database connectivity to iron out any bloated pieces.
The bde of course is a wonderful tool. That is it makes our lives very very very simple. This does not make it the best thing. Just a good thing.
Well enuf rant for now have to save some energy for The actual release.
What the... (Score:2)
Where did you get THAT from?
RPM was created to install, remove, upgrade, verify, and build software packages. Even RPP (Red Hat's first attempt at a package manager) could track what was installed.
InstallShield(TM) isn't anything like RPM. It doesn't use a standard package format, it doesn't keep track of what has been installed, it requires a executable be built for each package, and that executable and its user interface is intimately part of the package.
You're so far off base people are wondering why you left the ballpark.
Thereafter, it was assumed the user would use 'gzip,' 'bz2,' or 'tar.(gz),' to uncompress the package/product and 'make' to install it.
Huh? If that was the case, they'd just dump it in using tarballs, like Slackware does (used to?).
RPMs
The only time I've seen this is when the packages in question were distribution-specific things,
like the initscripts package, for example. If you have something else you're talking about, I would like to here about it...?
First of all, it is the packager who decides where to put things, regardless of package format. Everything down to "make install" works the same way. If you don't like where the packager put things, edit the source to install where you want. Don't blame RPM.
Second, I've found most of Red Hat's RPMs adhere to the Linux File System Hierarchy Standard rather strictly.
So, again, just what is your basis for this assertion?
The _best_ thing about the Open Source movement is the ability for _everyone_ to become a developer
I really think there is no single "best" thing about Open Source. But, either way, 99% of the people in the world have absolutely zero interest in becoming a developer.
Now there is a non-free compiler/tool/libs that threatens to take that essential paradigm away.
Um, hello? Most software already is closed-source, non-free, locked-up-tighter-then-a-drum code. It hasn't threatened Linux yet, and I don't think it will start now. Nobody's forcing you to use anyone else's commercial compiler. If someone produces a product using a commercial compiler, and you don't like -- don't use it. This isn't that hard to figure out.
I think the practical use of Kylix will be to whoever wants to code in it. Be it big corporations, small businesses, or Joe Hacker. Be it custom middleware, general applications, or system code. If someone wants to use it, they will. Otherwise, they won't.
Again: Nobody is holding a gun to your head, forcing you to use Borland's (or anyone else's) products.
At the very least, sysadmins, techs, and managers of Linux and *BSD shops should _carefully_ examine the products they install for GPL-flavored libraries and modules
You should always carefully examine the products you install, period. Be they commercial or free, closed or open. Interestingly enough, many people in the BSD camp consider "GPL-flavored" code something to avoid, because they don't like the restrictions on closed-source use. Likewise, there are those who think the BSDL's more lax attitude gives up too many protections.
Open Source doesn't make the need for software evaluation go away.
This, at least, is good advice.
I really wish Borland/Inpise had donated a tool the whole community could use.
And I wish there was World Peace. But I don't think either is going to happen. Borland's in the business to make money selling their software; that is their right. They have to make their business sink or swim using their chosen strategy. If their choices aren't compatible with the Linux community, they'll either change them or leave the market.
I seen no problem with that.
MPL, not GPL (Score:2)
Actually, most non-commercial component developers are encouraged to use the MPL, not the GPL, because (a) it gets around the issues the GPL has linking to (the non-GPL'ed) VCL and (b) many major component suites (eg, Winshoes) are MPLed, so it makes linking to them easier in commercial software.
Borland pioneered "like a book" software licensing (Score:1)
I trust Borland. They basically pioneered high quality development tools for the PC, while also pioneering the like a book mentality to software licensing.
Understand this isn't Microsoft we're dealing with, but Borland. I trust them to license commercial software and they make high quality software at that. With their powerful Object Pascal language and Delphi system behind a number of quality Windows applications (from largely non-Microsoft partners), it will be nice to get those applications ported to Windows.
And this is coming from a guy who prefers GPL, GNU/FSF, GCC, GTK+ and Gnome itself! ;->>>
-- Bryan "TheBS" Smith
Re:Component Libraries (Score:1)
Yes, of course if your own code makes lots of Windows API calls, you'll have to learn what the Linux equivalents are. At the Delphi presentation, they said that their own rule of thumb was that a major app that took a year to write should take less than a month to port. But nobody's claiming it will be a straight recompile.
-Graham
Re:Megido (Score:1)
Re:Screenshots (Score:1)
Re:Screenshots (Score:1)
and klicky-klicky tools like delphi lower the level of entry to a point where people start to think they are programmers that are obviously not knowing at all what they are doing
this is a problem we where somehow protected from till today in the ***x world
Re:Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:2)
Can u you think of anyone that used Windows before version 3, anyone that used visual basic before version 3, anyone that used word for windows 1 (that was word 4 i think). On the whole microsoft stuff wasn't well adopted until a few generations in.
I've used TP since TP6 (since i haven't been programming that long) and delphi since version 1 and i've been thouroughly impressed all the way. A few minor teething problems with D3 but they were traced back to some corrupt microsoft debugger left on my system.
Jbuilder was a piece of crap, but by version 3.5 it's apparently working well, and that's good
Borland are a company that I've felt deserve trust and respect because they have served me well for the past 8 or so years. Microsoft seem to be a little less reliable tho.
Just my $0.02 + inflation of course
I will use Kylix to write GPL programs (Score:1)
At the opening keynote, Dale said that a major goal for Kylix is to make it possible for developers to release their own projects under any license, including full-strength GPL.
I wouldn't be suprised if all the libraries and a command line version of the Delphi compiler were made "free" as in beer. That way, anyone could compile Delphi projects. However, if you want the full blown IDE and all the bells and whistles, then you have to pay. That would be fair.
Re:Danger of Kylix (Score:2)
Re:Component Libraries (Score:1)
Most of that should be available to be ported to Kylix as source code. The syntax is the same. The API is not. None the less once the code is in place, polymorphism suggests direct X-compile of the container project.
ActiveX stuff won't be so easy, but who the feck uses that shite in Delphi anyway?
Re:FUD (Score:1)
http://web.slashdot.org/articles/98/12/15/13242
From what I read on SoftwareAG's site, visual stuff was not supported (that means no activeX controls). However, if you want to port an app that talks to windows only com-objects, you could use EntireX to do that I think - you could move your delphi app to Linux and talk DCOM to the windows components.
Lots of people are going to say "why would I want to use nasty 'orrible windows stuff". Remember that heterogeneity is good for software. It protects us from viruses to some extent, and breaks monopoly power. Remember, this technology is unlikely to move Linux people to Windows ("Yay! finally I can write stuff I can port to windows!"), and more likely to move people from Windows to Linux.
--
Speaking as an experienced Delphi programmer, Kylix is very exciting. Not for porting - who cares about porting code? It's exciting because I can leverage my existing knowledge and build Linux apps. Now I am very, very likely to do so; before, I was very unlikely to.
En mass, this will mean a whole bunch of coders(quite a lot of people) suddenly looking at Linux, for serious commercial work, who would not have done so before. For Linux supporters, this would have to be a Good Thing (TM).
Also, I would councel Linux coders to have a look at Kylix when it comes out. Delphi is a beautiful, heavenly, wonderful environment for building gobsmacking applications. Before you scoff, give it a look. Those of use who liked Pascal or Modula2 at uni will find that Object Pascal is a work of art (and beats the pants off C++ as an object oriented language). Anyone who likes Java will also like the language; they are quite similar (but Delphi->Kylix makes Java development environments look just plain evil). Before I get flamed, yes, I do understand the platform independence of Java, and no, Delphi/Object Pascal does not approach that. However, if you know one, it's not such a big step to the other (I think Object Pascal is closer to Java than C++ is); worth a look, it might be a better fit to some solutions where you would have used Java.
Urm, I'm rambling. Anyway, Borland/Inprise's press says that Delphi will do wonderful things for Linux, by bringing a truly powerful RAD development environment to Linux, which they hope will lead to an explosion in apps, which might just bring Linux up to a competitive level in the world of the desktop computer. I think they might be on to something.
Emlyn
Re:Delphi Compile Speed (Score:1)
We chose C++ Builder because we thought we needed extra efficiency (which I now think was wrong). So we built stuff in C++, using templates and all kinds of goodies.
On his PIII with the lot, it takes over half an hour to recompile. It runs fine, but a half-hour compile time for a RAD project is murder.
On our previous project, an order of magnitude more complex, it took maybe 10 seconds to compile. Really!
The slow relative compile time of C++ Builder has been a big shock to us; rue the day we chose BCB over Delphi.
People familiar with both products will know that the default in BCB is to show a "Compile progress" window, to show you where compilation is up to. In Delphi, it is turned off by default. There just isn't time to display it, before compilation is finished.
Emlyn
Re:These guys are good (Score:1)
Re:Delphi's object model. (Score:1)
Use TObjectList as a _base_class_? Or a container to store your objects?
Whatever the method, you've still got to remember to free the TObjectList yourself. And you've got t o create one for every new scope. So for every function that uses a local class type variable, you've got to create _another_ object just to hold references to them, and then you've _still_ got to remember to free it yourself anyway.
OK, it makes things slightly better, but I don't think it really invalidates my point. It's a hack to get around a language shortcoming.
Re:Delphi's object model. (Score:1)
(Ideally, the right tool for the right job. However, some people don't have enough time to learn enough languages, in sufficient detail to do the job to their satisfaction, to accomplish this.)
Anyway I wasn't arguing for a programming language anyway. The 'it' I was referring to was the object reference model, which, IMHO, sucks rocks. The rest of the language, for the most part, is fine.
Re:Delphi's object model. (Score:1)
So, I have the following choices for compound types:
1: 'record' types. POD types. Can be created on stack, or I can 'allocmem' & assign pointer for heap-based records. But no member functions, and certainly no inheritance, unless I want to start contstructing function pointer tables myself, which seems a little excessive.
2: 'class' types. Delphi's own object type, which I can't create on stack. All must be on heap, and must be explicitly '.free'd at end of use. They do have member functions though, and can use inheritance.
3: 'component' types. Based on COM. True object type that is _not_ garbage collected, it is reference counted. Objects created on heap, and free themselves when ref count drops to zero. Must be careful not to make circular references, which will cause objects to stay around for ever. This is hampered by the fact that it is impossible to create weak references to objects. Also, all object must be inherited from TComponent, and all must have v-tables, as well as the ref count and the ref-counting overhead, which I don't neccessarily want for tiny little objects I might have millions of.
I'm sorry, but that's a horrible mish-mash of ways to do things. C++ is bad enough with completely extraneous 'class' keyword doing _exactly_the_same_thing_ as 'struct', except for the default visiblity of members, but aside from that, at least it's pretty consistent.
I've found the features, I just don't like the way they seem to have evolved. I think they'd have been better if they'd been _designed_ with some type of consistency in mind.
Re:Open Source Free Pascal Compiler is available (Score:1)
--
Re:Why seperate Delphi & Kylix (Score:1)
I myself have used delphi since v2 and love it. I am eagerly awaiting kylix so I can make some cool toys for linux. This will also alow me to do contracting work for linux, not to mention client server programming between winblows and linux. I imagine that being able to build the client app for winblows and a server for linux would be awesome. Stability on the server side with the user still able to use winblows.
I hope they get it done soon, been waiting since it first was announced.
Re:Sounds good (Score:2)
Linux has needed this for a long time. One of the barriers to Un*x (especially free ones) development is that your choice of languages are fairly limited, and they usually amount to sticking together modules of two or more languages with duct tape and chewing gum (such as the "object oriented C" in GNOME), particularly if the app is (going to end up in) a WIMP environment.
I don't think that WIMP as we know it is going to last much longer, but in the meantime, Delphi will do a nice job of bringing Linux further into the mainstream (like it or not). When a niche software developer is able to say they support Linux right out of the box (excluding Debian), it's a big endorsement. Their customers are going to start wondering why software from their bigger vendors doesn't.
Re:Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:3)
This doesn't mean that betas can't be demo'd.
Incidentally, the final proceedings CD is usually never available til weeks after the conference anyway...
Delphi's compiler is already blindingly fast, so there's no reason to assume that they're using high powered machines to pull the wool over anyone's eyes.
The report looks like something that actually happened at BorCon. How does this make it a rehash of a press release?
Interbase (Score:1)
I was (am) concerned by the delay (it's been 6months since it was announced and the products packaged and ready to go) I've always been suspicious of the "it's in the bag - we just have a few minor details to sort out before we sign", as that usually means some sort of big problem, and a 50/50 chance of it actually being signed.
I am however encouraged that they are still talking the opensource (interbase) talk while in the spotlight, and think the attention focused on borland during this crucial period will hopefully help keep them honest.
Re:Danger of Kylix (Score:2)
Borland intends to give away its command line compiler (dcc) for free distribution. It won't be open source, but you WILL be able to compile Delphi apps in Linux without buying it.
Re:That's why they invented RPMs. (Score:3)
No, RedHat (the 'R' in RPM) 'invented' RPMs to close the gap until InstallShield Corporation or someone else came up with a solution that worked in the *nix kernels of various flavors. It was created to distribute distros and make _initial_ installs (of the OS and ancillary packages -the 'P' in RPM) easier and more friendly. Thereafter, it was assumed the user would use 'gzip,' 'bz2,' or 'tar.(gz),' to uncompress the package/product and 'make' to install it.
RPMs have become 'the prototype that wouldn't die' since they -seriously- mess up the target OS (unless it is _precisely_ the OS the RPM binary was compiled on) and strew ungodly amounts of crap throughout the file system.
"End-user don't need to build software, developer do..."
The _best_ thing about the Open Source movement is the ability for _everyone_ to become a developer, responsible for their environment, and with the tools to exercise that responsibility. Now there is a non-free (beer and speech) compiler/tool/libs that threatens to take that essential paradigm away. The poster of the original article did not say what the retail price-point of the Enterprise version of Kylix will be, but judging from JBuilder (a _great_ product, by the way) you can expect to pay about USD$2500.00/seat (more overseas - for less!) or more for the Enterprise version of Kylix Studio.
I agree with the first poster in this thread. This is _very_ dangerous and has the potential of forking the tree in a way not envisioned in the GPL or by Linus. I wonder how this is going over in Redmond? Has Borland/Inprise bought into 'embrace and extend?'
All the above said, the practical use of Kylix could be limited to in-house projects in shops that need the cross-platform compatibility or the utility of Borland's otherwise excellent optimizing compilers and customer service/community. Otherwise, there are plenty of tools/libs for Pascal (Delphi) and C++ in the Open Source tree. These tools and libraries should be used, (rather than the proprietary tools mentioned in the article) for distros and products that _truly_ support the community. At the very least, sysadmins, techs, and managers of Linux and *BSD shops should _carefully_ examine the products they install for GPL-flavored libraries and modules, and watch out for the inclusion of proprietary code such as what Borland will offer, lest they get too far down a one-way highway.
I really wish Borland/Inpise had donated a tool the whole community could use. There is no real difference between 'Kylix Studio' and 'Visual Studio' in this context. It makes me sad that yet another company does not yet 'get it.' I only hope that this prompts the various open IDE projects (KDevelop, the GNU efforts, etc.) to move _much_faster!_
Re:Go go, I/B !! (Score:1)
Worrying (Score:1)
Re:Danger of Kylix (Score:1)
As a Visual Basic Developer (Score:2)
I'm serious!
One of the ways Microsoft got Windows off the ground was to make it EASY for Fortune 500s to write those THOUSANDS of dull, everyday apps (and many INTERESTING apps) that they need to do business (Oh no, not another timesheet app). This has been missing from Linux up to this point. Delphi has always been an "edge of radar" kind of development platform in the F500 world, but didn't offer enough to bump VB (a case of too little, to late - If they had been first....)
Anyway, the idea of cross platform, and Linux, will make Linux (and Delphi) a MUCH more viable solution for a LOT of companies
Compiling GPL source with closed compiler/OS libs (Score:3)
If you write a GPL'd program that requires closed libs (either compiler libs or OS libs), then that's OK, because your code is a 'derived work' of those libraries, not the other way around.
If the libs are GPL'd, then you can't link proprietary code to them, which is what the FSF wants. "We'll share our libs with anyone who's willing to share back", but if you write GPL code that needs to be linked to proprietary libs, then that's your perogative as you wrote the code. No-one is 'using' your code as a base, you're using theirs.
K.
Open Source Free Pascal Compiler is available (Score:3)
It is with great pleasure that the Free Pascal Development Team announces
that
Version 1.00
of the Free Pascal compiler has been officially released on 12 july 2000.
The Free Pascal Compiler features:
- A Turbo Pascal and Delphi compatible compiler for the Intel processor
family, with some extensions to the Pascal and Object Pascal dialects,
such as operator overloading.
- Full debugger support with GNU GDB.
- An OS independent Run-Time Library, equivalent to the Turbo Pascal
and Delphi Run-Time Libraries, not dependent on external libraries.
- An API allowing for OS-Independent screen, keyboard and mouse
management.
- Many units, interfacing to various API's: gtk, xforms, zlib, ncurses,
sockets, X, mysql, postgresql, Interbase, paszlib, opengl, libgdb.
- A Free Component Library, containing many base classes from the
Delphi VCL.
- An IDE resembling Turbo Pascal's IDE (currently Beta quality) with
full GDB debugger support.
- More than 800 pages of documentation in Adobe PDF format, featuring
+ User's guide
+ Programmer's guide
+ Reference guide
+ reference guide for all units in the Run-Time Library
+ More than 440 complete example programs.
(Other formats include plain text, HTML and PostScript)
- Full sources to compiler, RTL, docs, packages.
More information can be found on:
http://www.freepascal.org/
Installations are available for the following platforms:
Dos - Using the go32 extender
Windows - Native Windows binary
Linux - RPM,
OS/2 - Using the EMX extender.
Amiga - Based on version 0.99.5
Select your nearest download location from:
http://www.freepascal.org/sdown.html
(Beware, not all mirrors may be up-to date yet...)
or you can go directly to the FTP site:
Dos - ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/Dos
Win32 - ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/Win32
Linux - ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/Linux
OS/2 - ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/Os2
Amiga - ftp://ftp.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/Amiga
Installation instructions can be found on the web-page.
If you experience any problems with the installation, please let
us know, so we can correct them as soon as possible.
Enjoy !
Michael,
speaking for the whole Free Pascal Development Team
-----------------------------------------------
Re:FUD (Score:1)
Re:Danger of Kylix (Score:1)
Borland is marketing Kylix at their existing Windows userbase, who primarily code internal corporate applications, and who are considering their long- and short-term dependance on Windows. I would imagine that 90% of the stuff developed with Kylix never makes it outside of the company it was developed for. I seriously doubt that Borland believes that the traditional Unix developer wants/needs their tools.
So, of course there will be some Delphi stuff showing up on Freshmeat, and some clowns might even try to market shareware to the Linux folks (har). So what -- if it's Open Source and it really bugs you, you can port it to whatever compiler you want.
Re:Delphi's object model. (Score:1)
Anybody who argues for a certain programming language solely on the basis of its technology exposes himself as an Idiot who deserves to be ignored.
- Not anonymous and not a coward-
With Regards,
Phillip H. Blanton
Re:Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:1)
BorCon has a tradition of some sort of themed event at the opening session. In the past, it's been Indiana Jones, Star Wars, medieval knights, and what have you. Doing "The Matrix" was actually fairly predictable. I'm not sure what your issue is with this.
The machines in the lab running Kylix are battered-looking Compaq Deskpro rentals. If you're interested, I'll go back to the lab and get exact specs, but trust me, these are not high-end machines.
And I can assure you that I am writing about what I saw at the conference, first-hand; I did not read any press releases before I submitted the story, and I don't work for any of the involved companies.
-Graham
Re:yes, lots of Windows programmers (Score:2)
You state that most Windows software is made with VC++, not Delphi. Then later on you say that you don't want the Windows software mindset to creep into Linux by having Delphi programmers migrate to the platform. However, The "style that they developed on Windows" that you speak of is therefore from the VC++ programmers, not the Delphi ones.
Have you ever actually used an app programmed with Delphi? I've found them to be cleaner since the OO libraries are much simpler. I've found them to be less intrusive on the system, and in general, better behaved.
Why wouldn't we want to bring this to Linux?
Re:What happens if you eat the blue beans ? (Score:1)
Nothing happened -- they must have counter-acted each other.
--CP
You've misunderstood Delphi's object model. (Score:1)
No, he doesn't mean COM interfaces. He means OBJECT interfaces, like in Java. (You think that uses COM, too...?)
Yes, a "little" excessive indeed...
You'd basically be reinventing OOP. That's what the 'class' syntax is FOR, already.
Why are you so hung up on where in memory they reside? Who gives a shit if they're "on stack" or "on heap"?
Just create them, use them, and free them -- how stupid does one have to be, not to be able to manage that? Oh, OK, for those who are, there are a couple shortcuts:
A) Assign them to an "Owner" object, which will take care of 'Free'-ing them when it is itself destroyed; or
B) Reference them (*only*!) _through an interface_, in which case the built-in reference counter takes care of them for you.
Neither should be necessary, but if you think you are too stupid to call 'Free', they're there for you to use. You don't *have* to, though.
No, *no*, NOOO! Sheesh, how fucking wrong can one be...?
There are no "separate 'component' types", and they aren't "Based on COM". They're just like "2: 'class' types", because they ARE ordinary defined-as-class objects.
You just declare them as, and *reference* them through, an _interface_ type in stead of through the class' native methods and properties, if you think you are too stupid to handle them the ordinary "class object" way; then they're 'Free'-d by the RTL when they aren't referenced any more.
Yeah, so you can't indulge in circular references and shit like that... So what? The type of moron who can't be expected to clean up after himself isn't very likely to get into any "advanced" stuff like that anyway. You gotta have *some* self-discipline, somewhere -- that's the price of using a powerful language where you, the programmer, are in ultimate control.
(The type of behaviour you seem to miss in Delphi, that you apparently have in C++, seems pretty VB-ish to me -- an interesting contrast for all the fuckwits who claim that it is Pascal that is the "toy language"...)
Dunno what you mean by "weak references to objects" (unless it is what interfaces do?), but you're certtainly wrong again: No, they don't have to be inherited from TComponent.
They only *have to* implement some interfaces; if you write the objects, then *you* get to decide what interfaces you build into them. Sure, if you want them to implement IUnknown and, uh, whatever the other two basic reference-handling ones are called, then the easiest way is to inherit from TInterfacedObject. That's basically just TObject plus the implementations of those three interfaces.
(And yes, those interfaces ARE called the same as in COM; and no, that's probably not a coincidence. But that's just so *you* can easily build COM "objects" *from* them -- it doesn't mean that *they* NEED any COM stuff at all.)
Of course they have v-tables; that's what objects are all about! If you want pure dumb data, use an array of records or something.
And if you can't build a clean enough design that your "millions of little objects" keep track of themselves, use one of the built-in container classes, bung them into a TList or something.
Yeah, sure, it might seem that way.
If one hasn't a fucking clue about what one is talking about.
I'm sorry, but I think you have demonstrated that you aren't quite qualified to make that judgement.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Hey Spud, *your* post is kind'a flame-bait, too! (Score:1)
"Kylix will be sold [...] GCC will be used by developers."
"Kylix will be sold [...] GCC is for developers."
"Kylix will be used [...] CGG is used by developers."
Hey, WTF, over...?
Delphi (and thus, Kylix) programmers ARE developers.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Totally out to lunch. (Score:1)
"Kylix creates software that can only be compiled with non-free software."
Yeah, so?
You buy AutoCAD, you can use CAD drawings that I can't. I buy Quattro Pro, I can use spreadsheet files you can't. That's how it goes with proprietary software.
Should we campaign to abolish AutoCAD and Quattro Pro, whining about how some people can use some files and not others?!? Not even Linus wants to, AFAIK.
You don't think buying and installing Kylix will necessarily *remove* GCC from your system, do you?
Or that the kernel developers are going to start accepting patches that won't compile under GCC?
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Hey "drinkypoo", you're a real numbskull. (Score:1)
They didn't, because they're sickos.
In any case, C++ will prove to be far more useful throughout my life than pascal."
How bloody nice for you.
For *me*, OTOH, a sane and reasonable language like Pascal will probably prove to be far more useful throughout my life than C++.
Lucky for me, Borland is there to provide it for me.
You can run out and buy Visual C++ or Visual C# or something.
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Hoelzle, you don't know what you're talking about (Score:1)
Bloss dass du's woisch, gel?
Christian R. Conrad
My ISP is the Saunalahti company, of Finland.
Re:I will use Kylix to write GPL programs (Score:1)
(I'm not official, of course - I just read the Borland community newsgroups)
Re:Danger of Kylix (Score:2)
--
Open Source Kylix (Score:3)
If there are Pascal programmers out there who want to target Linux, I suggest you check out Free Pascal [freepascal.org]. If you must have a nice, user friendly GUI rather than a straight command line compiler, then I suggest you check out Lazarus [freepascal.org], which is an open source version of Delphi for Linux. It's still in the early stages of development, but it is coming along nicely and shows huge potential, IMO.
--
Re:Open Source Free Pascal Compiler is available (Score:2)
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
I don't want to learn pascal. I'd far prefer they brought out the C++ version first.
They didn't, because they're sickos.
In any case, C++ will prove to be far more useful throughout my life than pascal. The only people still pushing pascal, in fact, work for borland or inprise or whatever they're calling themselves this week. Even the Apple programmers get to use C++ these days, they're not forced in a language designed to teach programming. Of course, as far as I can tell C++ is a language designed to teach humility...
Long posts (Score:2)
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
Uh, I'm glad you're the boy genius, or have an excellent memory, whichever it is. Now, I consider myself to be pretty bright, but my memory is for crap, and I have an attention span about half as long as the lifespan of a gnat, at best, unless the subject matter involves breasts or explosions. Exploding breasts, however, do not have twice the draw.
It takes me a lot of self-convincing to actually sit down and learn something. Most of the time, I'd rather be playing UT. This is probably the reason why the only language I've picked up thus far is perl -- It's immediately useful and you can jump in and write worthwhile code (if unoptimized) without knowing much about programming. I have no formal training, know very little about data structures, and even less about which Algorithm I should be using at a given point in time and how I would implement it even if I did know that, but I can still write fairly complex perl scripts, with the help of my new favorite ORA book, "Mastering Algorithms with Perl".
On the other hand, buckling down and picking up some strongly typed fairly strict languages is just not my cup. I wish I were better with various sorts of linguistics, but my brain couldn't even retain the fact that to spew text in C you used printf for quite a while, let alone what all the damn percent substitutions are.
Anyway, it's all well and good for you to suggest that I just learn languages as I see a need for them, but frankly, it's just not that easy for everyone. So, like, thppt. In the meantime, I'd rather learn ANSI C or C++, which will be useful in a wider range of other peoples' programming projects. In the meantime, let me get back to my network administration.
Re:Screenshots (Score:2)
You have to have discipline as well as understanding to use languages with low-level features properly. One needs to understand the rules, and to learn to follow them *by default* almost without thinking before one can break those rules.
Programmers who don't follow this dictum *always* write crap code, because they simply don't know any better (cf. self-taught VB programmers).
Consciousness is not what it thinks it is
Thought exists only as an abstraction
Screenshots (Score:3)
Kylix is sure to unleash a flood of new GUI applications for Linux, as "anyone" will be able to build the GUIs, and many should be able to learn the Pascal language. Many traditional, popular Windows applications may be ported as well. All in all, Kylix will be great for Linux!
--
Help me to get it (Score:2)
I'm sorry: can someone dumb this down for me, a traditional web developer using Perl, PHP, and .shtml and very few other bells/whistles?
(I know it's not geek to admit you don't know something, but I suspect there's a lot more to this than I can grok.)
--
Re:Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:3)
Boy does that sound like a load of bullshit, and I'm saying that as a professional Delphi 3/4/5 developer. Are you comparing this with Delphi 5? On a P-II 450 Delphi 5 (or 4 or 3) compiles all but EXTREMELY large projects in a virtual instant, so how exactly are you timing this FUD 10 times faster claim? The reality is that the demo was likely extremely simple and compiled close to instantly on both machines.
Linux doesn't make the processor run any faster, and in Windows 2000 or NT 4 the processor sits at 0% when I'm not doing anything, leaving 100% for Delphi to do its thing in, so any difference between the OS' will purely be the result of the coding abilities of Borland/Inprise. The file system is unmatched in 2000 (NTFS) and the memory infrastructure is good. Having said that what would be the difference? Does Windows insert special SLOW_DOWN_OP opcodes in the instruction stream? Does Linux have special RUN_SUPER_FAST_OP opcodes? No of course it doesn't. Barring multithreaded or multiprocess issues, where 2000 is considered superior anyones, there'll be no real difference. The operating system is a facilitator, it isn't an interpreter.
Something like Kylix for Linux (although it'll be astronomically more complex than a Project1/Edit1 type demos that port great) is a great step and it'll be great being able to port to Linux relatively easily, but the reality is that it brings realism to the equation : Why bother with Linux? What does it really offer (apart from the ridiculous 10x faster FUD) that you don't get (usually better) in Windows 2000? Forwarding a cult, or conversely spitting in the face of Microsoft, isn't a valid selling point for most corporations (except for Sun "you don't have any privacy so get over it" and dumpster diving Oracle).
Good to see Inprise doing this though as they are an awesome company with some incredible products. From a educated perspective I will say that the whole porting issue will be infinitely more complex than many portray it, but it'll definitely be easier than using two totally disparate development platforms.
Cheers.
Irony (Score:2)
The product won't be free-as-in-beer... but is anyone whinging on about that?
Hell, no. It's exciting, it's going to be great, whoo look at the speed!
How very different from the response to other products that aren't free-as-in-beer.
Corel releases powerful, useful software... and all they get is a kick in the goolies from the Slashdot crowd. Endless bitching about it being closed-source, about it costing money, about it coming from a Windows platform.
More and more, I develop the opinion that the majority of Linux users are jackasses. They want the world to come to Linux, but they don't want Linux to be truly useful to the majority of people. In their opinion "if it's not a development tool, it's shite!"
Linux won't be used by the general population until it has easy-to-use, general-purpose tools, like word processors, checkbook managers and a few games. With this current attitude toward practical popular tools, it'll be a loooong time before it gets there.
But, hey, Kylix will help you spooge your 133T H4X0R sK1Llz!
--
Give me a break will ya. (Score:2)
Relax. I am looking forward to shelling out whatever it takes to buy klyx I know it's going to rock. I can't wait to be able to do cool GUI stuff for linux.
Re:Irony (Score:2)
Corel releases buggy, crashy software... and I delete it.
Corel Computer releases Netwinder systems for about $400 more than it would cost me to make an (admittedly larger) pentium-based PC with the same horsepower, memory, and storage. Make that $200 more if you want me to include video and audio input.
Corel is old and tired. Corel Draw was perhaps the buggiest commercial application over $100 ever written.
The other thing you're missing is that plenty of people have been bitching about the closed-sourceness of Kylix for a long time now. They're probably just worn out.
Re:That's why they invented RPMs. (Score:2)
RPMs have become 'the prototype that wouldn't die' since they -seriously- mess up the target OS (unless it is _precisely_ the OS the RPM binary was compiled on) and strew ungodly amounts of crap throughout the file system.
<sigh>
And InstallShield doesn't?
I will never understand the need some people have to find one little grain of sand on the ocean shore that they just can't live with.
- RPM vs DEB vs TGZ
- RH vs Slack vs Debian vs Mandrake vs etc.
- GNOME vs KDE
- GTK+ vs Qt
Hell, the whole Linux vs *BSD is just about as idiotic! (I'm not even going to go into Language Wars<tm>).When you try to say that one whatever is better than all others of it's type you are, in essence, espousing the same position that Billy-Boy used to make the latest Great Monoply. If you have to have a winner you are missing the whole point of life.
All of these things are tools to use to get the job done. As Neil Pert once said:
To bring this rant... uh, "post", back on topic, Kylix is a Good Thing<tm>. As soon as they have the C++ version out I'm buying it. I have C++ Builder for Win (though I haven't ever used it) just in case I might have to build a Win app. You never know...---
Sounds good (Score:3)
This will be one of the most important events for corporate acceptance of Linux in a non-server role, since Delphi is used by a lot of companies to develop their software. Since Kylix will be pretty much the same as Windows Delphi, changes to the source code in order to port an application will be minimal (at least in terms of the usual process of porting), and may make companies think about moving over from Windows to Linux, especially those companies which provide and all-in-one of software and hardware to customers.
So we may see Linux begin to really encraoch upon the business software market, which whilst not the intention of Linux, is still a large market and a great opportunity.
---
Jon E. Erikson
Why seperate Delphi & Kylix (Score:3)
Essentially it's Delphi for linux, but I have to wonder why they are keeping the linux and windows versions distint.
Sure I realise there are some very large parts of linux missing from windows, and vice versa, but surely the way forward is to abstract these details as much as possilbe from the programmer.
Sure it means that low level components have to be developed seperately for each OS, but this would make code immediately compile on both platforms.
I haven't looekd in on this project for a LONG time but you may want to check out REALbasic [realbasic.com] (just noticed they wrote IE for mac in it :)) because it lets you build Mac and Windows from the same source, despite the OS differences.
None the less, I love borland/inprise/whateverdafucktheyarecalledtoday, and their software and so long as it's not another JBuilder (cringe) i'll be happy :)
Conference excitement and vaporware (Score:3)
Every conference I've ever attended has revolved around building hype and excitement. The key isn't how much hype is left after an hour, but how much is left after you've gone home with (or in this case, without) a copy of the tools to actually play with and find fault with. Trust me, when you go home emptyhanded, there's a reason. Everything seems great when you take it from a jolly Matrix-themed conference with cool jellybeans, but when you're sent home without a CD, that really says something.
If Microsoft pulled a shenanigan like this and compared itself to the Matrix, we'd all be cracking jokes about it and saying that the software was an illusion. In this case, though, the guy is actually singing the company's praises! Hello? No software to take home? Doesn't that scream vaporware? We wouldn't tolerate it from Microsoft, and we shouldn't tolerate it from anyone else, either.
Granted, you saw it running on a few machines that weren't on the net. It was blazingly fast. Wow. Did you see what was inside the machines? What kinds of processors? Don't we always point fingers at Microsoft for pulling the same trick, demoing software on ridiculously overpowered CPU's and shovelfuls of memory?
Am I the only one who thinks this "story" is nothing more than a rehash of a press release?
Preview? (Score:4)
Follow your own advice guys ;-)
Re:yes, lots of Windows programmers (Score:2)
Most mainstream, Windows programs are written in VC++, so it's not like that this will bring the few crucial apps to Linux that Linux needs for mainstream acceptance (mostly Office).
OTOH, it will keep Windows programmers from learning how Linux development and programming works. They'll develop in the same style that they developed on Windows, and they'll produce the same kind of software that they produce on Windows. That kind of software is one of the main reasons I don't use Windows, and one of the main reasons other people have fled Windows as well.
Turbo Pascal community and free software... (Score:3)
In its early times, Borland was somewhat developer friendly. Solid products and good documentation (at least judging from that times standards). At that time the GNU project was just starting, and most development was closed source. Borland was just that - a closed source company - but the Turbo Pascal community was somewhat different. There were groups like SWAG, and the ftp site at garbo.uwasa.fi (from Timo Salmi). Sharing code snippets was pretty common. Even the commercial libraries for Turbo Pascal used to cost much less than the equivalent ones for C, and almost all of them included source code. This was one of the reasons was Pascal survived so long - specially if you consider the strong pressure towards C (and later C++) in the academia and the industry.
Delphi was one of the most underrated software products in history. It alone saved Borland from bankrupt after a string of bad management decisions. Its amazing how many developers use it today. Maybe C++ or Java has more magazine coverage, but almost all commercial shops in Brazil use Delphi for things ranging from quick and dirty apps to full blown corporate suites. Its power and flexibility are amazing.
I think Kylix is going to be a very strong product, one that builds upon the strenghts of Delphi. It also can take Borland back to its initial days, and make Linux a truly viable alternative for commercial software development. The Pascal community can make a strong difference. Object Pascal structure makes easier than ever to share components, and the vast amount of quality free code for Delphi (RXLib is a wonderful example) is a tribute to this.