Inprise/Borland Developers Conference Linux Nuggets 147
Inprise has offered Interbase for Linux for over a year now, which is very much worth looking at--but the problem is, the Linux version is only 5.1, where the NT, Solaris and HP/UX versions are all at 5.5, so there's been some question about Inprise's commitment to Linux. At the conference, they announced that Linux development is still going strong, and that while Interbase 6.0 would be released for NT first, its Linux release would be in the following quarter. The NT release is currently planned for mid-2000.
Inprise also announced JBuilder for Solaris and JBuilder for Linux. This is based on what they call "JBuilder PrimeTime" which is JBuilder in Java. Apparently JBuilder was originally written in Delphi, and over time they have been porting pieces of JBuilder to run natively in Java. The currently shipping JBuilder 3, which is only for Windows, is not yet 100% Java; however, JBuilder for Solaris, which will ship by the end of the year, will be. It will be followed up in short order by JBuilder for Linux in early 2000. There are strong rumors that JBuilder for Solaris was moved up at Sun's request, because they want a better development tool on Solaris than Java Workshop to prop up their hardware sales in the developer market.
With all this Linux stuff going on, there were a dozen or more Linux-oriented sessions at the conference; quite a change from last year. And of course, the Delphi team had to get their hand in. They did not make any announcements; in fact, they made it quite clear that they have not yet decided what to do. However, they did give out some results from the developer survey: The most interest is in Delphi, followed closely by C++Builder; the vast majority want a full RAD environment, not just traditional tools; native GUI support is by far the winner (as opposed to Motif or [shudder] WINE), with KDE preferred over Gnome by a small margin--though it goes unsaid that if you could have chosen more than one, everybody would have picked both. They have had 16,000 responses since the survey went on-line, which they consider an excellent turnout.
Following these announcements, they did a demo of what they've been working on so far. As many of you know, the back-end compiler is the same between Delphi and C++Builder, as of Delphi 3/C++Builder 2. What they showed was bcc running on Linux (specifically, Red Hat 6.0 using Gnome). They compiled Xgalaga with both gcc and bcc, with bcc getting the job done in a little less than half the time that gcc took. They then ran the resulting binary to show that it was real, working code. Watching the demo closely, it was also possible to see that the binary that resulted from bcc was smaller than the one gcc produced, though there's no way of telling whether this was due to smaller code or just different debugger settings. And of course the real interest is in the RAD environment, which they did not demo; the question of whether Delphi for Linux will include the VCL is yet to be answered. But it's clear that work is ongoing, and if they've already invested enough time to get bcc running, it seems quite likely that a product release will actually happen someday.
Of course, Inprise/Borland is not an open source company and all these products will be commercialware, and there are still issues to be resolved concerning how quickly they will support new kernels, libcs and distros; how nicely they will play with the other kids; how the community will react to the concept of for-pay, closed-source development tools; whether their licensing will permit you to build open source projects using Borland tools; etc; etc. There are many ways they could screw things up, and even if they do everything right, it is not at all clear that a large market exists for for-pay development tools, in the presence of really quite good free ones. However, I think the "linux market" and the "linux community" are increasingly divergent concepts, and there may well be room for Delphi somewhere in the market--if perhaps not so much in the community itself. "
Would I use commercial software? (Score:1)
Actually, there is one commercial software I use under Linux, it's idl (www.rsinc.com)
However, IDL's performance sucks compared to Win, probably because they use gcc as their compiler. Only this year has RSI started to use glibc2! (they were using redhat 4.x to compile idl for a lonnnnng time). Commercial software just lags behind,,, but the point is, if a compagny wants to make money out of commercial software, pleaaase, stay tuned to some of the issues in the Linux world! (like freshmeat, slashdot, whatever, pay a geek to monitor those sites for you 8-) For instance, in IDL, use bcc and intel's fast math libraries and give us something worth the 2000$ per licence we pay for it.
Of course, I'm just dreaming, this is never going to happen.
---
What have you given back to the community?
Forget Something? (Score:1)
To: Borland Guys
From: Guy who payed for your compiler
Subject: broken compiler
your compiler is broken. I payed good money for it, and then tried to compile my copy of splizquux on the new IBM/motorola/digital/amd/transmeta chip (which linux has been available on for 18 months now), and it didn't work. upon disassembling the code I found that it was incorrect assembly being emitted from your compiler. Furthermore the exception handling was broken and it wasn't threadsafe. here's a detailed report on how to do these things correctly on that CPU... blah blah
To: Lower Life Form
From: Borland Bottom-Line Supremacy Department
Subject: sorry
That CPU is not really our number one unit-selling platform. It's not worth the money for us to fix it. I'm afraid it'll be a while before you'll be able to see that bug fixed, if ever. Furthermore by disassembling our emitted code, you have violated your license agreement (you must dispose of the compiler immediately) and the WIPO 2003 "Digital Consumer Protection Act". We are now going to sue you for reverse engineering. You may never use a compiler again. Have a nice day, and remember to "Buy Borland, Cause our Compiler is 0.2% faster than the Red Menace GCC!!!"
Some strictly unoffical comments (Score:2)
That said;-
Yes, we are serious about Linux. We're a commercial company so we have to find some way to coexist with Open Source to our mutual benifit.
We think we can do that and offer useful products to Linux developers and commercial users of the OS.
As to the products; I have the Java release of JBuilder running on my Linux machine right now; and it is awesome
I also have the tech-demo of IBM's Linux Visual Age for Java and that, too, is excellent. Which one you prefer comes down to the RAD paradigm you like most.
Linux JBuilder needs JDK1.2 to run. VAJ is (mainly) native binaries but the two IDEs seem to run at the same speed. The JBuilder team did an excellent job of getting JB to run very fast and stable.
As noted, our port of bcc to Linux compiles about twice as fast as does gcc. I do not have direct experience of the compilation times at present but I am informed that it does indeed run faster and produces smaller binaries. The exact gains depend on the compiler options selected.
We also have a bunch of other stuff poised in the wings awaiting offical release...
Cheers,
Linc.
Mmmm.. Borland (Score:2)
Overall, I think the Microsoft Developer Conference [min.net] was a bit more lively, though. (:
GCC can't cut it compared to Borland's compilers. (Score:1)
Borland make the worlds fastest compiler. There's been a lot of talk about bcc being faster than gcc but you people forget that C++ is just an addon. The real compiler is the Object Pascal one that forms the core of Delphi. Some basic experiments I have done indicate that it is 10-20 times faster than bcc.
I can build the current system I'm working on (50k lines in 5 or so EXEs) in under 40 seconds on a PII-233. An equivalent sized(in LOC) C++ program takes somewhere between 5-10 mins to compile. This is before you see that it usually takes 5 lines of C++ where 1 line of Pascal would do...
Re:bcc? (Score:1)
After all, we have cc, bcc, gcc, lcc, and probably a few others, why have another bcc when you could have icc, or vcc, or cb or something. I'm sure the marketing people just spend all day thinking up better names, anyhow, put them to use for once.
bcc? (Score:2)
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:3)
The only way would be to find the best possable flags for that specific system, for that specific code (in the above case, a benchmark itself written in C). And the results would still be suspect because it would only show the results for that specific hardware, and that specific code.
In my mind, my solution is this, if/when I want a new compiler, I realize that I have got by with gcc/egcs for such a long time, I'll find the person who is working on the code specific to the hardware I am running, and donate money or equiptment directly to that person. Only other choice would be to pay for something that is "closed" and hope they did a good job, and hope it was a value. ;-) So...
gcc/egcs isn't perfect, and has a ways to go, but it sure is a dang good value, and I believe it will get better. When open source comes up, I belive gcc/egcs is a better success story than Linux, FreeBSD, or any other piece of software, because without the compiler, the software would never be were it is today.
gcc 2.95 soon, link compatibility (Score:1)
Remember c++ compilers are not link compatible. If you've ever tried to link to a MS c++ lib on NT from borland you will know that.
Re:VCL is Key! (Score:1)
I've actually considered writing something like this for my own use. (IE could pretty easily port my windoze apps over to KDE or GNOME)
Most of the code in my stuff is standard C++ and the only problems I've had porting the stuff is GUI development. I'd really like to be able to drag and drop GUI widgets in the manner Builder does it on Windows.
Ex-Nt-User
Re:VCL is Key! (Score:1)
Honestly, programmer lazyness... I'd prefer to be able to just do a recompile between a Windoze version and Linux version.
If making a source compatible VCL for GNOME/KDE would indeed be a hack (and not "The Right Thing") I could do with some incompatibilities. Especially on new projects where I could do the #ifdef thing. And have the incompatibilities on my mind when writing the code.
With old projects it's a different story, I have at least 6 apps that would be worth porting. But I wouldn't have the time to invest in modifing them to compile for Linux. Thus the usefulness of such a tool would decline for me.
Ex-Nt-User
ps. Just for the record I would prefer a VCL that would do the right thing.
VCL is Key! (Score:2)
I'm stuck writing code for NT at work. I'm working on some Linux code but it's not officially sanctioned. I'm doing it to prove to management it can be done and work as well if not better then NT.
Most of the code is done in C++ Builder because the GUI development is extremely fast and flexible. If Borland would release source compatible VCL and C++ Builder for Linux I don't think my management could argue againts doing everything in Linux. On top of that I could just re-compile all my apps to Linux in not time.
Ex-Nt-User
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:1)
Edit-and-continue is all very well, but in my experience with VB (admittedly not extensive) in about 50-70% of cases where I make a change to a running program, it needed to be restarted. The kinds of errors you tend to make will dictate how useful edit-and-continue is to you. For instance, if you alter a template definition, it's likely that a rebuild will be needed.
As for me, I tend to build about once an hour or so when I am writing and debugging extensively. Otherwise, I try to write the entire class or module and understand that it is correct before I build it.
Excuse me if this is slightly confused; I'm a tad tired.
Paul.
bcc vs. gcc -- what about runtime? (Score:1)
However, compilation times and executable size are nice, but the real test will be runtime performance. Unless it produces faster code, no-one will use it...
Re:Would I use commercial software? (Score:1)
Sure, I don't mind using (and paying good money for) commercial software... as long as it comes with source-code. I strongly prefer an open-source licence, but I do understand there are buisness constrainst that come into play. I'm happy as long as the terms of the licence are flexible enough to allow posting small chuncks of questionable code for review, discuss possible changes with other users/developers, post patches to the code to fix probelms and add features, and to be able to (at my discression) submit those patches to the company for possible inclusion. Buisness don't seem to see that there is demand for commercial applications with source code.
If you don't let me see the source code, you don't trust me. If you don't trust me, why should I trust you. If I don't trust you, why should I trust that the code you write does what you say it does, and doesn't (by design or by accident) reek havock on my machine. If I don't have confidence that your software won't trash my system why should I pay you money for it.
I was listening to an audio coulmn on KNX radio yesterday by Michael Josephson [charactercounts.org] called "Character Counts" [charactercounts.org]. In yestedays column (which is not on his website yet) he reported (unhappily) about a buisnessman at one of his seminars who (when he brought up the topic of keeping promises) described the decision whether a buisness should keep a promise (such as what a software package will do... and not do) as purely a cost-benifit analysis of the costs of keeping the promise vs. the cost of breaching it. With ethics like this floating around the buisness world, it is not reasonable for me to trust that what a software company says it's products do is, in fact what they do. According to this buisnessman's arguemnt, if his company deemed that it would make them more money to have their software cause a problem on my system (unbeknownst to me) so that I would need to buy another of thier products to fix it, then they would do this.
I spend alot of money on my machine each year, but it's not worth my time to spend any of my money on commercial software if it doesn't come with source code, although I'm more than willing to spend good money on commercial software, that I believe I would find useful, if it includes source-code.
New definition of 'Data Mining' (Score:1)
See what I mean about closed-source software... (in this case Netscape...) You can't trust it.
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:1)
That was not the intention, we are tring to add value to our products and speed, both compilation speed and speed of the executable, is generaly very important to compiler users.
Just my, very personal, $0.2.
--Paolo
Re: (Score:1)
Will it compile Linux? (Score:2)
Is the kernel gcc-specific?
It would be interesting to try on things like X11 and window managers; things of that sort.
-Gabriel
Re:gcc vs. bcc (Score:1)
much better to wait and compare two release compilers
Check out Lazarus and Free Pascal (Score:1)
It's available here [pcpros.net].
It's using Free Pascal [kuleuven.ac.be] as its base.
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:1)
"Would I want to see it in Delphi or C?"
FYI, edit-and-continue is a feature MS VC++ 6.0.
Re:gcc vs. bcc (Score:1)
with a bcc working under Linux.
I would think of the borland compiler much
like the dos or OS/2 compilers. They are
tailored for the particular environment.
I've always like the Turbo and Borland products
can't wait to get my hands of their Linux
versions.
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:1)
Remember, it's very early in the development cycle. Who knows what kind of jury-rigging was used to get it to work at all. And I don't think they're really trying to put down gcc. They just want to show that they have a compiler and it has strengths. We'll have to wait for an actual product before we can really see what the deal is.
-Graham
Re:bcc? (Score:1)
Re:Yum. (Score:1)
Compiling Object Pascal (Score:1)
I don't care about UI's and widget sets. We're going to wrap a Java/Web interface around it anyway.
I'll probably get flamed for this, but I personally think that Object Pascal is a better OO language than even Java. (Damn sure it's better than C++) One word: Properties. I _miss_ properties when I'm programming in Java. I shouldn't have to care whether I'm assigning a value to a variable or calling a setter method. That peculiarity of the implementation should be hidden from me, goddamit! Ok, maybe Delphi need's 'interfaces' the same way Java has them, but Java needs Properties.
I truly hope Borland commits to Linux. They've been building the best PC compiler tools for at least a decade, and there's a lot of good code written in their tools that it would be good to port.
111? (Was: Borland's Relationship with Microsoft) (Score:1)
bugbear 3001 wrote: 111?
I don't understand.
Better check the link before replying. (Score:2)
D
----
Ever tried it.. (Score:1)
Now, go try a mixed language project with VS - when you want, say, your Java and C code browsed. Does not work right, does not it? Go try Source Navigator for that - just don't use the default editor - link it to x/emacs. Now that an IDE.
Ahem...correction (Score:1)
Re:REAL SCOOP ON MICROSOFT "INNOVATION" (Score:3)
Relax, everyone knows that AOL ripped off IBM's innovative OS/2 SHIFT+INSERT technology, which failed only due to POOR IBM MARKETING!!!!
I'm sure Apple is somehow to blame too.
--
RAD IDE for stock tools? (Score:2)
IMHO it would be very nice if Borland/Inprise used GCC and the other GNU tools as a backend (and submitted improvements to their code bases as needed!) while using their IDE and RAD tools on top. I think people would pay for this, the community would benefit from some source improvements, and there would not be the overhead of supporting another compiler. Metrowerks seems to be doing this with their Codewarrior "GNU edition." Does anyone know how well this works?
Borland would have to be careful not to violate the open source tool's licensing, but this shouldn't be impossible.
-OT
RAD apps needed for Linux (Score:1)
This is definitely a step in the right direction. We need more RAD tools for Linux, especially if we want it to grow effectively. There's Appgen, which I've never tried, but Appgen seems to be pretty much proprietary (use Appgen-developed apps with Appgen developed DBs). There's Glade, and KDevelop, but I don't think you can really consider those to be enterprise level applications.
What would be nice also, is if Sybase could port Powerbuilder over to run/compile on Linux. It is, to me, unrivaled as a GUI application development environment.
Kudos to Borl--Inprise, and hopefully they run ahead of schedule. I'm sure there will be a very nice market for commercial development apps, plus it will add a bit of diversity to the compiler world for Linux. Just because it's not free, doesn't make it bad...
Re:RAD apps needed for Linux (Score:1)
Re:Go Borland, baby! GUI support? (Score:3)
As for GUI development, VC++ is really not any good in that environment. After having use Powerbuilder and (shudder) Visual Basic, I can't see any reason at all to use VC++ for GUI development. And now you have an interface that mimics VC++?? For shame!! Everyone is entitled to use what pleases them, of courses, which is one of the guiding principles behind Linux, but what we need is not imitations of life-sucking programs which Microsoft foists on the public, but innovative new programs which foster RAD, or for companies to port existing excellent software over to Linux, like Inprise is doing.
That being said, let me qualify by saying that I've never tried Kdevelop, and probably won't ever, because it requires Qt/KDE, and I have enough libraries without adding another set + desktop environment.
Still, anything that reminds me of Microsoft on my Linux machine is summarily deleted.
Re:bcc? What? (Score:1)
Most of the java compilers I see are called javac. There are other examples of name clashes out there that I'm too lazy to dig up. It's just an executable name, not a product name. If you develop regularly with both the Borland C Compiler and this 16-bit compiler, you might have to go out of your way. The rest of us can set a link to the one we use and forget about it.
Windows-style development tools not welcome. (Score:2)
Windows-style development tools allow both the API designers and the application programmers to delay facing up to, and fixing, serious design problems with their systems.
For example, the MFC class libraries have serious problems in their inheritance hierarchy, but rather than fixing them, Microsoft just adds a bunch of wizards to their development tool to do manual delegation.
Similarly, the VC++ GUI design tools result in GUIs that, for the most part, use fixed layouts that don't work well at different resolutions, and they generate code that is difficult to maintain.
To me, Windows-style development tools give the appearance of making development easier, but in the long run they have a negative impact on the quality of both the OS and the application code.
Bringing a lot of the Windows development tools to Windows risks bringing Linux down to the same level as Windows. I hope that the traditional Linux community will be strong enough to keep those kinds of influences from doing real damage.
Linux development tools aren't perfect, of course, but I think Windows-style development tools are the wrong place to look for improvements. We don't need more windows or buttons, we need better tools support for specifying, composing, analyzing, and verifying large software systems.
(In case you are wondering, yes, I have developed in VC++, Borland, and UNIX, and I'm currently a full MSDN subscriber.)
FreeBuilder anyone? (Score:3)
Re:KDevelop (Score:1)
Re:Forget Something? (Score:1)
( by the way, gcc also has bugs
Re:Go Borland, baby! GUI support? (Score:1)
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:1)
Re:RAD apps needed for Linux (Score:1)
InterBase 5.6 for Linux? (Score:1)
IIRC from discussions at news://forums.inprise.com/interbas e.public.linux [inprise.com] and news://forums.inprise.com/interb ase.public.general [inprise.com], InterBase 5.6 -- and that would be final release of 5.x codebase -- should be released for NT and Linux at the same time.
If this rumours happen to be true, this release would be any DBA's dream -- imagine a product with feature set freezed, and bug set seriously restricted.
All in all, one can hardly question Inprise/Borland commitment to Linux after all this.
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:1)
GNOME/KDE (Score:2)
Re:c++ name mangling (Score:1)
SOS : Standards Often Suck
Re:VCL is Key! (Score:1)
Re:Not just any commercial software (Score:1)
There's quite a lot left of Borland, and it is very much alive and well. I have used their stuff since Turbo Pascal 1.0 on CP/M, and have made my living using their tools for about 16 years now.
Imagine how long it will take me to decide to purchase Delphi for Linux!
Re:Delphi (Score:1)
Linux lacks a good RAD tool, and is woefully lacking in thorough docs for developers. True, the source is all there, but people, I am not looking for a hobby -- I'm moving to Linux to develop apps. And if I must invest months in understanding the platform, then I'll switch to BeOS instead.
Case in point: the serial programming HOWTO is weak, hasn't been updated in 18 months, and is acknowledged by its author to fall short of the mark. I use serial I/O in all of the apps which generate my livelihood, so imagine how happy I am to see that.
On the other hand, I have an excellent serial I/O component in Delphi, and I look forward to seeing it ported to Linux.
I'm not here to develop tools, but to develop apps. To do that, I need reliable and mature tools. Delphi is one such which serves me well under Windows. I will race to buy it on Linux!
Re:VC++ (Score:1)
Delphi has been intuitive since 1.0.
VC++ is like a drug habit: debilitating.
Re:VCL is Key! (Score:1)
two truths (Score:1)
free good
As one who has observed Borland since their beginnings, I can happily state that I trust their work, their eithics, and their concerns for quality. I have used more high quality products from Borland than from any other vendor.
surprise (Score:1)
Re:RAD IDE for stock tools? (Score:2)
Borland has a responsibility (whether or not the open source radical fringe can appreciate it) to preserve the value of the company to its shareholders. That's not a policy; it's a law.
Besides, I fully expect the Borland compiler backend to perform as well as, or better than, gcc. Borland has had to keep tuning in the unending battle with M$.
strong backend (Score:3)
Borland also has, in Delphi and C++ Builder, strong RAD tools which will make it very easy for thousands of Windows programmers to move apps to Linux, furthering the growth of the Linux community.
The range of their questions in the survey, and their willingness to publish preliminary findings shows that they are committed to delivering what the market seeks.
As to commercial software, I welcome paying for a great tool, rather than getting a good one for "free". My time is worth much more than I will pay for the tool, and my experience with Borland tools gives me confidence that lack of source access is not an issue.
Borland's VCL has not been open source, though developers do have source access to most of it. There are patent issues involved, and I would expect to see the source access to the VCL remain much the same under Linux.
I have already invested thousands of dollars of my time in Linux, and am not yet ready to try to ship a product. If I had Delphi, or C++ Builder, I would have reduced that investment by an order of magnitude, and would be hard at work on my applications.
Please, Borland, move with all possible speed!
gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:3)
There is one thing that your report does not mention about the gcc vs. bcc comparison: was there any way to compare the speed of the compiled code?
It is nice to know that bcc compiles faster than gcc. This is interesting for those of us who are writing code and compiling all day. But when the end users install the software on their machines, they mostly care about the speed of the executable (compilation time does not matter much).
The Market is the Community (Score:3)
Yes, there are hardcore Linux users and lightweight, parttime Linux users. But they are both part of the community.
Check out TVision (Score:1)
They had an excellent TUI complete with buttons, windows, pop down menus, radio and check boxes, text editing, etc. It was extremely well thought out and unbeatable for C++ development/learning in text mode. Worked both with mouse and keyboard.
They now distribute it freely. I couldn't find a complete license agreement but you should be able to develop BSD style licensed programs with it blazingly fast (at least the UI when you become acquainted). It is now ported to Linux though I haven't had a chance or trying it but you can download it here: [unc.edu]
Even in DOS days when I bought BC++ 3.10, TVision came with its complete source code. I made a database program combining it with Paradox Engine. The whole thing worked flawlessly without a memory manager, i.e. with less than 640 kB. I plan to do the same thing with some free SQL in Linux one day.
My thoughts/ideas (Score:2)
Now, with Delphi I don't think you could do this. I don't know how I'd be able to ensure that Linux/Alpha users would be able to use something I programmed in Delphi. So, I came up with one idea.
What if Borland freely distributed their compiler that handled Delphi source code, for all Linux platforms? Maybe they're already planning on doing this, but I'm not sure. Anyways, they could still sell the RAD environment and the tools. This way, you could even write open source Delphi applications.
One problem with this is that people would be able to code without the RAD environment, and just edit the source files.. and thus not needing to buy Delphi. But I'm sure Borland could figure a way around this.
So, to conclude, I guess what I'm trying to say is that Borland should seriously consider the ability to produce applications that can be ran on all Linux platforms, not just x86 / glibc2 / qt / whatever.
Re:FreeBuilder anyone? (Score:1)
Check out www.netbeans.com. They have a pure Java IDE that's actually quite good. Also free for non-commercial use and/or trial.
--JZ
Re:KDevelop (Score:1)
Needless to say, I'm a big fan.
--JZ
Go Borland, baby! GUI support? (Score:2)
Commercial and free development can, indeed must, exist side-by-side.
BTW: Whoever mentioned that they like Visual C++ should check out KDevelop (www.kdevelop.org). Its interface is basically identical to VC++.
--JZ
Re:Mmmm.. Borland (Score:1)
Re:bcc vs. gcc -- what about runtime? (Score:1)
Borland's products don't cost so bloody
much around here (Dublin) - around £100-130
for Delphi or C++ Builder.
Now, if they could release bcc with a perfect
clone of libc, we'd get a pretty nice, fast
kernel, too
Re:Ahem...correction (Score:1)
Of course, while Borland's IDE's text editor isn't bad, I do wish I had the power of emacs in there at times.
c++ name mangling (Score:1)
I heard that c++ doesn't have a standard for name mangling. Does bcc use the same name mangling as gcc?
If I have, for instance, a qt shared library compiled with gcc can I use it with a program compiled with bcc?
KDevelop (Score:1)
Re:C++ Builder + Qt (Score:1)
yes! (Score:1)
What about chinese (Score:1)
anyway, there are several free letters in english, they could use tcc, since a lot of there stuff starts with 't' for 'turbo' all of there windows encapsulaton classes back with borland C++ 4 were 't' somthing
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
VC++ (Score:2)
I've removed everything but the menubar (and I put 3 buttons on it, fullscreen, save all, and the button that shows/hides the output screen).
but I can understand why you wouldn't know that, it's so hard *right click in the work space* and all.
"Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
Compiler competition? (Score:1)
it seems to be that it is no longer a commercial environment with little patches of freeness such as linux and *bsd (most of at least) but a free world with some great commercial products out there as well as great fre ones.
Re:Yum. (Score:1)
Re:Go Borland, baby! GUI support? (Score:1)
to knock up a project via drag 'n drop and then
use a converter (email me for details) to convert
the dsw/dsp files into a platform generic makefile.
In the process it replaces the absolute path with relative paths and cleans out all the junk. To see how inefficent it is look at the dsw / dsp files in notepad.
The other advantage in doing this is that I can automagically retarget for ming, cywgin or VC for those without VC.
Yum. (Score:1)
Its somewhat of a pity (though understandable) that they are headed to Linux instead of FreeBSD, but maybe with linux emu and a little bit of luck I can get their products running on my FreeBSD box as well.
Hmmm. Happy days ahead.
gcc vs. bcc (Score:1)
and switches (Score:1)
Further, it would be nice to know what switches were used with each compiler. Any compiler should be able to beat gcc -O6 in compile time.
Re:Go Borland, baby! GUI support? (Score:1)
The libraries with VC suck for the most part. MFC is a pigdog, ATL lacks features (and neither are really portable)...and STL support is crippled with the stream libs.
One old borland feature I do miss is syntax highlighted printouts...something which ms has left out of vc for too long.
Re:My thoughts/ideas (Score:1)
An Intel only compiler for Linux would only be a partial and frustrating solution. 80% market share notwithstanding.
Re:VCL is Key! (Score:2)
And if that were the case, they'd have to produce a superset ANSI-C++ compiler, because they had to hack the hell out of C++B's compiler to get it to handle Object Pascal constructs.
But we shall see. I'd rather they just use Qt, the benefit, of course being that it already compiles/runs on Linux and Windows, and provides a similar framework to the VCL.
Re:yes! (Score:2)
The Borland C++ 5.02 (I use it in college) is so much better - Clean , uncluttered and only a minimal interface.
VC++ has to put everything on the screen, only a quarter of my screen is usually available, half at max.
Did they mention Visibroker? (Score:1)
So far, they seem much more interested in convincing us to (a) switch to NT and use their builder products for visibroker devlopment or (b) switch all development to java and use their builder products for development.
Re:gcc vs bcc: speed of the compiled code? (Score:1)
1) Speed of compilation during development to make the programmer's (code-compile-debug) loop as tight as possible. Speed/size of the exe (within reason) is not an issue with these builds.
2) Then there is the release build. On this build, speed/size of the final executable is all. Speed of compilation (within reason) is not an issue.
One suggested tactic is to optimise both simulataneusly is to have 2 compilers - for dev and for release. But most vendors just use compiler switches to change from Debug to Release builds.
Borland has typically been very good in both compiler speed departments.
Thier promo material tends to emphasise the quick debug builds, but that is because Delphi has for a long time competed against MS's Visual Basic, which being an interpreted language has a compile time of zero - you can stop at a breakpoint, change the code and carry on running .
IMHO this is one of the few nice features of VB. Would I want to see it in Delphi or C? No way.
Re:VCL is Key! (Score:2)
> Thus you could use the "C++ Builder for Linux" with either widget set
As someone else noted, The Delphi/CB VCL may be written in OP, but it is really just a wrapper for the windows API, which relies heavily on sending messages all over the place.
A VCL that runs under a completely different OS and UI toolkit, and tries to maintain compatible public interfaces with the Win32 VCL may be possible, but will likely be as ugly as heck & generally be the Wrong Thing (tm).
I love VCL, it makes Win32 bearable because it does the right thing to it.
I'm all in favour of a similar library for Unix (less learing curve for me & my cohorts) - but why must it be identical?
Why should a KDE/Gnome VCL do Win32's right thing? Ok, I mean aside from that pesky source compatibility trip.
Re:bcc? What? (Score:1)
gut tells me that Borland doesn't want to piss of the Linux folks, but rather complement what they already use and give them better tools when possible.
Re:bcc vs. gcc -- what about runtime? (Score:4)
As for the "Primetime" (JBuilder in pure Java). There were quite a few discussions and demonstrations. The one thing they did demonstrate was running the same Primetime for Solaris under Linux. What's holding back Primetime for Linux is that the Blackdown JDK still has too many bugs (heck's that's why it's prerelease).
I asked about whether Borland was contributing to the Blackdown project and was assured that they were. Also, Borland demonstrated their Java JIT compiler. This made Primetime perform like a native binary rather than an VM'd app.
Borland is also said convincingly that they will not develop their own VM. Instead, they said they will develop for the one in most common usaga on the Linux platform - Blackdown.
Among the other things demonstrated were:
DataStore - An object oriented persistent model for Java.
Delphi CORBA going against a Linux based CORBA server. They also demonstrated a preliminary IDL compiler that worked with Delphi code.
The commitment from Borland appears to be there. It won't be long before their tools will be among those of choice -- especially in a corporate setting.
bcc? What? (Score:1)
Jeff
DELPHI VCL (Score:1)
if it can do anything it is able to do under windows.
Re:two truths (Score:1)
Re:111? (Was: Borland's Relationship with Microsof (Score:1)
The ability to copy an insane fascist ranting and hold down CTRL+V won't get you much respect around here, bugbear.......
Perhaps he belongs on cooksey.net/thndx.htm instead?
I think you can figure out how to email me
Re:Will it compile Linux? (Score:1)
I think you can figure out how to email me
Re:yes! (Score:1)
I most probably wount run Linux in 6-10 years, I will migrate to a much more modern OS - probably GNU/Hurd.
Better safe than sorry (Score:1)