Borland Delphi and CBuilder for Linux. 227
jelwell writes "Borland has announced Linux support for Delphi and CBuilder. The tools are scheduled for a mid-2000 release. I wonder if they plan on integrating their products with any window managers/distributions?" Infoworld has the story - which also says, "To seed interest in the Java-on-Linux movement, Inprise this week will provide a free, downloadable preview of the JBuilder just-in-time
compiler for Linux that supports many Java 2 Enterprise Edition specifications."
This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
This is definitely a chink in Microsoft's armor. One less reason to stay with Windows.
Source Level Compatibility with Win32.. (Score:2)
I know, I know, GNU tools on Win32 work, but not in the graphical interface area. I've always stuck by Visual C++ for Win32 development, but this is DEFINATLY a good reason to check out borlands products..
Thanks Borland (Score:1)
Thanks Borland for allowing all the Visual-something developers to develop on Linux.
Delphi and C-Builder are product that allow a visual approach to programmation like Visual-Basic/C++/... without having to deal with MS and all their technology.
But don't forget that this is the first step. We need a free (like in speech) replacement for this kind of software too, we must gave time to Glade, KDevelop and the like to mature I think.
I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:4)
Linux hasn't needed Borland since the day it became powerful enough to run GCC and serve as its own development platform.
Some of you are euphoric every time some commercial vendor offers a piece of ``support'' for Linux, because it means that the popularity of your favorite operating system is increasing. So you rejoice at the popularity increase even if you don't plan to use the newly ported product.
Some, like me, would use a freedom platform even if it wasn't popular, and would use freedom software even if it wasn't as good as a proprietary alternative in terms of convenience or performance or other measures. How about you?
A giant step closer to world domination for linux. (Score:3)
Many of the company's other products, however, are produced using Delphi, which is currently only available for the Win* OSes. With the addition of an awesome programming language (Delphi), together with another cool development tool (C++ builder), linux has indeed taken a big step closer to world domination.
Why? Everything is a circle. Developers attract users, users attract developers. Eventually, you reach a critical mass, and the two groups will automatically begin attracting each other, even if the underlying product is shitty (ala windows). For OSes that have not reached this point, its critical that simple to use development tools are made available. If my past experiences with Borland are any indication, we are up for quite a treat.
I wish there were more details. (Score:4)
Just a few things that came to mind. I
The JIT is available NOW ! (Score:3)
Good news, bad news (Score:1)
Why JBuilder first? (Score:2)
If Java is really "Write Once, Run Anywhere", it is not so urgent for Java Programmer to write java under Linux.
What linux is really lack of, is the RAD tools, especailly for in-house development. If we want the company replace all the win9x inside the Desktop, Delphi or C++ Builder should release first.
GTK support? (Score:1)
hmm do we really need this? (Score:1)
Re:hmm do we really need this? (Score:1)
Best news since sliced bread (Score:1)
on the linux train, especially in the developer
community.
With so many apps you're inquring on the the
status of a Linux port you get the std. answer
"yeah well, it's all point and click delphi
doh" that this should really bring a host of
new apps to Linux.
Nice work Borland / Inprise, now make it fast
and bug free and off you go. The penguin is
unstoppable, and I cannot help smiling.
Uwe
Can I write free software in it? (Score:3)
free software I am interested. If you need a copy of Delphi to compile it the resulting code is not
free software. Maybe they can offer a runtime lib as free software so you can't use the real nice desing tools without paying for them, but anyone can re-compile apps.
On the other hand for "In House" apps it will be nice.
It's a first step (Score:3)
You may not want to trade your liberty for a good software but they are a lot of people that are bound to closed software right now. This is the first step to allow them to expand their view to free software as well.
To paraphrase RMS, it is better to have closed applications on a free OS than free applications on a closed OS. With Linux (and *BSD) we control the foundations to build free applications on and these are strong foundations. RMS did the right thing by beginning to create a free OS rather than free applications
Re:Why JBuilder first? (Score:1)
/\ X | O M
If I were Borprise (or is it Inland)... (Score:1)
Re:This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
And the same folks started to shout that this would mean the end of the planned Delphi port to Linux?
I'm really starting to wonder about the average attention span around here. There's an article about IBM putting an ID chip on their MB and everyone attacks IBM (as a whole, not only on this) while yesterday IBM was hailed as the new champion of open source?
Can somebody explain me?
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:2)
Re: Why JBuiler first? (Score:1)
I seem to recall that a large chunk of JBuilder (something like 80%) is already written in Java. Which would make the porting to Linux alot faster than other more Win32 specific products.
Shrug.
Tools are great, but we still need a good JVM. (Score:1)
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:1)
With products like Borland's programming tools, Oracle's database, etc all those windows people that can use these products suddenly can be fairly useful in Linux as well. Then as they get their feet wet, some will want to learn more about Linux and we've got ourselves another recruit. World domination is an incremental process, but we have the better technology. We just have to convice people to make that first leap, and making it as easy as possible for those who are scared.
Re:Why JBuilder first? (Score:1)
Re:This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
I didn't care that Microsoft was funding Inprise. It was probably a "Hey we're being nice to the competition" BS act (do you think they enjoy the fact that THE easiest AND most powerful development tool is now available on many more platforms than VB and VC++?). Inprise probably used the money to fund Delphi for Linux
And apparently it wasn't the end so those people will have to eat their posts!
Duh ! (Score:1)
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:1)
The VCL wraps a few Windows common controls, like file and print dialogs. I'm not sure what they'll do about those on Linux, since Gnome and KDE have different common controls.
Re:This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:3)
Yes. In fact many developers who like RAD tools and are afraid to get their feet wet in real programming have stuck with Windows for just this reason. There was no "easy" development tools for Linux. But now there is.
In a year, we should be seeing a lot of development going on in Linux. Helped, of course, by the fact that the code will be cross platform compilable. That's important too. Not just the tools on Linux, but the ability to compile the code you developed for Windows on Linux. "When Kylix is released, virtually overnight there will be hundreds of thousands of applications available on the Linux platform, and many will be ports from Windows,"
I can't wait for the preview...
-Brent--
Qt price (Score:1)
Re:They better (Score:1)
Slackware isn't an option until slack gets all the way to glibc. As for X, they'll probably include stuff for straight X, and wrappers for Gnome, KDE, and (why) Motif even. And I think that they are trying NOT to make it dependent on one distro, but make it guaranteed to run on ALL major distros (Caldera, Debian, Slack when it hits glibc, and yes, Redhat). That alone will give them a step above the Codewarrior tools, which only run and give support for Redhat based setups.
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:3)
I always love it when people demand you to do as they want while talking about freedom :-)
New software is great news for Linux. Sure, it's commercial but who forces you to use it? You can continue your free life but let other people also have the freedom to choose.
From my point of news Delphi for Linux is the best thing since sliced bread. I've been developing a big application on Delphi for a while. Thanks to Inprise I can also make a Linux-version of it and give my customers the freedom to choose between NT and Linux.
Why this is a good thing. (Score:2)
The major benefit to using Delphi is that you can just plop down a **very** nice gui and have it work with no bugs. That lets you focus on the guts of your project. I don't know how many times I've used a GUI app on Linux that does it's job well, but has a crash/core dump bug when you pull down the wrong menu and click in the wrong place.
Delphi being released Open Source? Never going to happen. If Borland is smart, they'll release a free (at least as in beer) command line compiler so that people can compile projects written in Delphi. If you take the open source away from linux, you have nothing. Therefore, if your development tool is too expensive to be used for open source projects, the project leads will stay away from it.
Duh the Duh ! (Score:1)
Yes, yes, it's a fantastic announcement... (Score:1)
Personally, I loved developing in Delphi & Builder. Much, much better than X, much better than MFC.
But who the hell put a guy named "Swindell" in PR!?!? Come On! Is this some kind of joke?
Maybe I should buy my hardware from Mr. "Cheatum", too. Or his native-american counterpart, "He-Who-Sells-Things-That-Emit-Foul-Odors-And-Noxi ous-Smoke".
Upgrades? (Score:1)
Probably BOTH (and then some) (Score:1)
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:3)
I think the BIG thing that kaz is overlooking here are people like me who develop commerical software that is marketed to people inside of large corporations and such. Selling software is my business, and while I RUN a linux server here at our office, I don't have the desire (nor the business model) right now to give my packages away.
Sure, I've written a few free utilities for 32 bit Windows and they are available for free on my webpage. (http://www.buffnet.net/~millard) However, the fact of the matter is, that there are thousands of small shops just like ours that aren't prepared to give their products away! Having development tools like those that we are used to for the Win32 platform makes is beyond simple to jump into the Linux ballgame.
Some immediate benefits I see are:
All in all, this is some of the most exciting news (as a developer) that I've heard in a long time as far as Linux goes. I can't wait.
Re:This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
This is so naive...
They have them by the balls!
So now Inprise is the Good Guy(tm) and everyone is happy and the World Domination(tm) is going on as planned, right?
Right?
Or maybe someone wanted to test the waters in the Linux world with an advanced development environment... maybe there's some money to be made there...
For the OSS-people... (Score:3)
Many of you don't like Delphi for Linux because it'll probably be commercial and closed source. You are totally free to have that opinion but how about putting your programming where your mouth is and contributing to the Lazarus project [miraclec.com]?
Lazarus is the class libraries for Free Pascal that emulate Delphi. They are also making and IDE. So check what you could do [miraclec.com].
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:1)
I'm not "euphoric", but I think this is a good thing. Delphi for Linux might not be Open Source, but if it helps me build effective apps for my customers faster i'm going to use it. I'd use GCC for everything if it were faster to use than Delphi, but it's not. Call me morally bankrupt for my pragmatic approach if you will - I DON'T CARE.
There are at least two "freedom platform" attempts to produce a "freeware Delphi for Linux" of which I am aware, Megido and Lazarus. Neither are going anywhere. There's the Free Pascal Compiler, sure, and this is pretty good as far as it goes, but it ain't Delphi. I guess you and your comrades in the collective could get on board if you want to demonstrate the strength of your convictions.
I DO plan to use the newly ported product. Delphi is a great tool, despite (or because of?) the fact it isn't open source. Actually, much of it is.
Your "freedom" stance may get you kudos at the commune or local LUG, but many of us in the real world don't give a rat's.
Re:This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
Clarification. (Score:1)
By the way, why is it that your customers depend on you and on Inprise to provide the freedom to choose between NT and Linux? If you didn't provide the choice, could they go to someone else? Some freedom they have there.
Uhhg... (Score:1)
I personally don't. It sure as hell doesn't matter
if linux is "ready for the enterprise" or any of
this crap. It's the software that matters. Writing
good free(as in speech) code. If you don't want to
work for a place that uses proprietary software,
DON'T!!!
BTW this wasn't really directed at anyone in
particular.
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:1)
If I remeber correctly it was quite fast too..
(They did a demo of it compiling XGalaga in half the time of the other compiler they were using. Of course my figures may be off.. but I do remeber it was faster.)
Re:Why JBuilder first? (Score:2)
Sure you can use today's versions of JBuilder on Windows and deploy on Linux but being able to do all your development in Linux is another story altogether.
Delphi and CBuilder are native applications and so they require more work to be ported. It's just like this.
Take care,
Paolo Ciccone
JBuilder dev. team.
Re:Good news, bad news (Score:1)
and it worked great. (of course I had to get to vfw and use a dll for the I/O board.)
But we were running multiple threads and had a nice interface too..
I dunno about non-GUI programing with it though.
Re:Uhhg... (Score:1)
What, what?
I just said that basically Microsoft (dressed as Borland) released a development environment on Linux for free and this is the answer I receive? Where I am? Am I really on Slashdot?
Keep in mind this: corporations are not out there for the good of the masses. They've never been, they never will.
First, nowhere on the article is stated that Delphi/Cbuilder will be free or even open sourced. It could have the funniest licensing in the world and you can do squat.
Second, as Sun (StarOffice/StarPortal), they could release the thing and then pull it off. Leaving the potential programmers out on a limb.
And you don't care?
Well, *I* don't care, cause I'm not a religious follower of this or that OS/philosophy, but if you are, then you really should care...
Re:hmm do we really need this? (Score:1)
And other people want development tools to get the job done the way which suits them best.
Freedom is about choice. Demanding that everything be GPL'ed, or implying that those who don't are morons (hello ESR), takes the choice, and thus the freedom, away.
Then write your own GPL code (Score:1)
But for those of us trying to leverage Linux into the workplace, this is the best thing since english muffins.
Re:Good news, bad news (Score:2)
Of course it is not going to be an open source compiler. Not everyone cares. Me, I would be willing to pay for a quality RAD tool for Linux. RMS does not like it; that is his prerogative. So far, Borland's tools have done me well. If they stop doing that, then maybe I will start campaining for an OSS GUI IDE.
CBuilder is not that great of a product. [...] More often than not, the "reqirements" for CB4 to make and run my program get in the way of the actual design of what I want. It is not for the faint of heart users.
I am curious as to what the problem is.
If you are looking to build a traditional C/C++ program, then you are better off with the command-line C++Builder compiler, BCC32.EXE. Treat it like GCC and you'll be in good shape. Be sure to specify the "target" as a "Console" app, or it will not work. (This is the fault of Windows, which does not provide main(), amoung other things.)
If that is not the problem, what is? Let me know, I may be able to help.
Re:Why JBuilder first? (Score:1)
Is the recent licensing announcement with Microsoft going to affect Delphi & CB on Linux wrt MFC?
Some thoughts, open and closed (Score:3)
We are now, however, moving into a world where software is easy and almost free to distribute. The software "industry" is no longer economically necessary. In fact, I think its a dinosaur. An antique. I truly believe that we will all be more productive (and rich) when all software is free because programmers will become people valued for their skill and productivity alone. We will all be able to use one another's knowledge (just as doctors and lawyers do now) so we can spend less time doing the same things over and over again. The pace of programming innovation will accelerate dramatically and the economic benefits of computing (faster business cycles and lower costs) will be magnified by that amount of time we no longer spend building the same basics at every employer and we instead concentrate on making existing software fit the local need.
All of that said, that is not yet the world we live in. While I want us all to be using open tools, a lot of businesses have a heavy investment in specific "enterprise" technologies such as Delphi and C++ Builder. I for one welcome these tools on the Linux platform. I'll prbably use them in my workplace.
The software I develop for the open source world will still use the GNU tools and be GPL'ed and use automake/autoconf and be written for maximum portability.
I also look forward to seeing tools like Kdevelop continue to mature.
While the software industry lives, let the commercial vendors come. Just try to keep your skills up in the open tools too.
This is what makes free software unstoppable. The commercial interests can take over the business market through the gullibility of the PHBs, but no one can take away your gcc, or stop you from giving away your own code.
I believe all software will one day be free and that it will be considered fiduciary misconduct to buy an operating system, but until that day, there really is room enough for us all.
Closed Source Is Good For Unix (Score:3)
If we could move 50% or more of our developers to Linux or Solaris, I'd be very happy. I'd like to see managers like myself be able to make the transition also. Such a transition, though, would require the availability of necessary evil tools such as project management software available on UNIX/Linux (and with the same level of functionality as, say, Microsoft Project and Rational Requisite Pro).
Whether or not these tools are open source is irrelevant to my bosses, who are making business decisions, not community outreach decisions. Our technical department actually does support Open Source software, but we also know that when a job needs to be done, if the best tool is not open source, then get the closed source tool...
What really matters is not the licensing model of the tools, but their availability on the platform. Businesses are used to having to decide whether or not to accept stupid licensing terms, but they like to have the right tools to choose from. Lots of developers use Delphi on Windows, and if they use it on Linux, also, that is good for Linux, whether or not their software is open source.
It would be nice if all software could be open source, but that is not the reality of our current marketplace, and so if Linux wants to continue to expand its user base, this is indeed good news.
Maybe Borland/Inprise will even change some of their licensing to allow free software developers to redistribute Borland runtimes libraries with freely redistributable software, and to allow open source distribution of code generated using their code generation tools. Incidentally, Frameworks generated by, say, C++ builder, should already be open sourcable since a developer will add and modify it enough to create most programs to make the copyright their own - though I haven't looked into the fine print on the Borland/Inprise licenses in the last 5 years...
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:1)
Kylix? (Score:1)
Why Borland/Inprise Got The Cash (Score:1)
Re:Clarification. (Score:1)
Open source Delphi programs. (Score:1)
Re:Why JBuilder first? (Score:2)
The MS Borland license issue doesn't affect the Linux projects as we said at the time of the announcement.
Re:OWL included w/ C++ Builder? (Score:2)
OWL is wonderful if you already have code written in it that you want to port. (I occasionally see an app with the giveaway OWL "check" button)
Re:This is a Good Thing (tm) (Score:1)
MS is making a move probably to eventually buy Inprise, though. But it'll mean doing something to VisiBroker that would be ugly (since so many MS competitors have contracted to use it as their CORBA broker, etc.).
Re:Source Level Compatibility with Win32.. (Score:1)
'Strange Days Have Found Us....' (Score:1)
1. They have some experience with freeware/open source. Delphi comes with VCL source and
there's InterBase 4 for Linux free (closed source).
2. Inprise is in so dramatically bad financial shape that they sold to M$- their only competition under Muzzdie.
3. D4 is full of bugs. Every complicated piece of software has them, but they weren't in D3
4. Since D1 Inprise didn't manage to create any new component suite. Most things are 3rd party. InterBase Express,
so much hyped, is based on FIB- _free_ IB API library.
This is good news for enterprises that have big code base in Delphi and those unable to turn to C, FPC, perl, python, whetever. Study or pay.
That's it. And of course, no one can force people to give up gcc and pay for Kynix (what that should mean?)
(For AC fast to flame poor little ladies- I'm with Borland Pascal since '90 and I do have freeware. In Delphi. How 'bout you son?)
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:1)
On Windows, the VCL is a native widget library (among other things), so I guess they'll be native on Linux too. . . .
The VCL wraps a few Windows common controls, like file and print dialogs.
The last time I used the VCL was C++ Builder 1.0, but at that time they didn't replace any windows common controls at all. Edits, trees, lists, whatever. They were all subclassed; go over a VCL program with spy++ or whatever and all the window class names are the VCL class names like TEdit and whatnot, but subclassing controls isn't the same as replacing them. MFC subclasses a lot of things too, though not everything. The only things in the VCL that Borland coded themselves were stuff like grids and panels that don't exist in the common control library. Of course their classes add stuff to the common controls, like the layout manager thing. I can't really see any reason not to use the common controls, in most normal cases. Of course all the windows common controls have silly arbitrary limitations and many have bugs, but that stuff doesn't cause trouble every day.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
Re:They better (Score:1)
Re:They better (Score:1)
Sounds to me like it's KDE-only. (I could be wrong, though.)
James
I've used Delphi a little, awhile back (Score:1)
GTK+ For Win32 has *BEEN* Availible.. (Score:1)
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:2)
Sure, it's not *great* for huge projects, and it's pretty poor for the typical Open Source app, but for throwing together rapid apps for minor database access and such, it's perfect.
I can't wait.
Well... (Score:1)
Re:Closed Source Will Die (Score:1)
Otherwise, if we can't get our jobs done with the tools, open source loses...
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:1)
Well, this would require them to port the BDE to Linux as well, and I definitely think that is a Bad Idea. Delphi has a great set of tools for building applications, but the BDE is buggy as hell (at least, for Windows NT). It's the main reason my company switched over to C++. I'd hate to see a bunch of new "production quality" code being written for such a flawed database intermediary.
Whoah ... (Score:1)
I would really like to know what you mean by "More often than not, the "reqirements" for CB4 to make and run my program get in the way of the actual design of what I want."
I used builder to make the win32 gui front end for a real time product. I had written the original app in VC++ and it was, quite frankly, a bitch to create and maintain. I downloaded the BCB demo from borland and recreated my entire product front end (a week of work in vc++) in a day. (granted I reused a LOT of code that wasn't gui related
I don't recall that builder ever got in my way. (this was a couple of years ago, and I've slept a few times since
As far as the GUI goes, it's not the greatest (I like tornado, but its in a different world i guess
I really would like to here from you on this one
/dev
Re:Can I write free software in it? (Score:1)
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:2)
Delphi developers can offer their customers a new platform without doing too much - they will be glad about this, they might sell more copies of their software.
Linux gets another popularity boost from the well-known effect of 'wow - the xyz enterprise which is pretty important in the business has Linux support now'.
And about the 'Linux doesn't need Borland' - there still is no RAD tool that matches Borland's products. Period. Clicking together apps may not be the most sophisticated thing to do, but that's what they need out there in the real world - sometimes.
Re:They better (Score:1)
Re:Why JBuilder first? (Score:1)
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:1)
I don't think they'll use Free Pascal - it only supports Delphi 2 features and they want to develop the next version of Delphi for Win32 and Linux.
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:2)
It's easy to snub proprietary compilers, but they played (and continue to play) an important part in the the history of free/Open Source software.
--
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:1)
Porting the VCL to a new toolkit in 6 months would be a monumental undertaking because it is very tied to the way the Windows API works. On top of that almost all VCL programs use the Win API quite a bit for things like file I/O, custom components that need to draw themselves, and even reusing old code written for the Windows API (you can integrate it into your VCL program pretty easily)...
So to not use Wine would mean they would have to rewrite the core of their framework, and that none of the current components and programs would work under Linux without significant rewrite. As much as we want native widgets, we *really* want all that existing code to compile under Linux and for the people writing it to move to Linux programming quickly.
I suppose the "best" solution in the long term would be to give people a "non-compatibility" option, which would allow native toolkits to be used. They could also build a bigger VCL framework which encapsulates all the functions you would use in a program (the VCL doesn't encapsulate nearly as much as MFC) thus making those programs cross-platform. With a 6 month timetable, though, this is not going to be happening unless they have been working on a port in secret for the last 2 years (unlikely). Sorry, guys.
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:1)
If you had, you wouldn't be gibbering about Free Software, you would be cheering. Borland makes the best Rapid Application Development tools around, hands down. Hacking in vi with gcc pales in comparison to being able to design good GUIs in no time flat.
I've been using Delphi since v1.0, and it's incredible. You get to see what your UIs look like at design time, it's totally object-oriented and event-driven.
I think this is an incredible step, and that instead of whining about Free Software, all the FS advocates out there should be saving up to buy a copy, so they can write their own RAD compiler using Linux-Delphi.
While the licensing may not strike you as good, the technology is nothing *but* good. I suggest you co-opt it instead of fighting it.
Re:your open source people are a bunch of weenies (Score:1)
Delphi RTL (Score:1)
A thin layer around Win32 API functions that has most things you need, but you won't find it. Date / time functions, string functions, file search, everything in SysUtils. The Windows.pas source code files is larger than 1 MB and has everything from drive type detection to thread synchronization.
Probably they will not do it because they want people to be able to compile their projects without changes. Sigh...
Good news? Isn't this the beginning of the end? (Score:1)
In the old days we had DOS and the developing was mostly done using Assembler or, later on, low level languages like C, Pascal, etc. This resulted in some very good software being developed. However, a lot of people (companies?) who developed software on a commercial basis also needed to shorten the needed development time as much as they could. Time, after all, is money commercially speaken.
This whole new development led to a situation in which 'high level' development environments were introduced. Unfortunatly this wasn't only shortening development time for the clued developers. It also gave a tool to the clueless developer "want to be's". The result is well known IMHO. Just take a look at the buttload of software which was coming out for Windows 3.x. One software package very often even worse then the other.
Besides these 'weird' programs the programs also tended to get bigger. Enourmous libraries, with many functions, were getting linked to programs even if the author only used 1 single option in the library itself. Basicly a lot of the software got bigger & slower which was somehow compisated with the hardware which was getting faster & faster. However; it still resulted in a lot of programmers who commited themself 100% to some programming environment which did a lot of the 'standard' work for them. A bug in this development environment also meant a bug in their program. Given the fact that most Linux (system) programs get installed as root one can only imagine what havoc some bugs in such a development environment can cause.
Open source? guess not. Sure, one can include the Delphi source code but can someone also tell me what this Delphi release -really- puts into the binary?
Its a personaly opinion, sounds normal to me, but I would not be surprised if the speed advantage which Linux currently holds drops a few months after the 'high level' development environments will be commonly used among the clued & clueless. Besides this I'm also afraid that the open source concept will be in a rough time. Like I said; Delphi source != open source IMVHO.
Re:your open source people are a bunch of weenies (Score:1)
If you really need an IDE based environment you could always make some macro for Emacs which lets you compile the program. Comes very close. For the clued that is.
Re:Yes, yes, it's a fantastic announcement... (Score:1)
This is so damn good for linux (Score:1)
I really should have learnt Delphi. doh.
Re:Good news? Isn't this the beginning of the end? (Score:2)
(1) High-level development environments help non-programmers pretend to be programmers and so are bad (in the sense that many of the problems with commercially available software are due to "programming" by these "programmers").
(2) Proprietary software is of its nature untrustworthy as it is impossible to tell whether or not what is actually being done and what is claimed to be done are in sync.
(3) The use of proprietary high-level development software on Linux will destroy the advantages that Linux has over Windows.
None of these are particularly new arguments, and I have sympathy on some levels for them. But I submit that you have overstated your case:
(1) Even if RAD enpowers poor programmers to write bad programs more quickly, the logic of open source overcomes it: in an open-source environment, programs developed via RAD will be just as open to review and fixes by other programmers. In fact, arguably open-source communities should be immune to this particular danger --- the more seasoned developers in the community will fix the mistakes of the newbies, who should learn from it.
(2) Proprietary software may require a higher level of scrutiny than non-proprietary software. But as long as the tools to analyse the software exist and are reliable and trusted, this shouldn't be a problem. [You say: "can someone also tell me what this Delphi release -really- puts into the binary?"
Now, granted, there is a greater _time_ investment in running such verifications. But, for the average programmer, the time hit is no greater than that involved in reading the source code to their development tool --- moreover, the average programmer doesn't do that anyway, they just go off of the reputation of the tool. (That's true even now; the days when every linux programmer was a kernel hacker are behind us).
(3) The advantages Linux has over Windows are largely in server software and the kernel, not in client-side user software. That's beginning to change, but remains largely true. Even if all of the things you fear about proprietary RAD tools were true, their use in client-side software would hardly destroy the advantages Linux has over Windows; moreover, such tools won't be used in kernel development _until the parts of the community responsible for such development believe in their efficiency_. In other words: they'll only get the chance to destroy Linux's advantages if they work well enough to be given that chance, in which case it's unlikely that they'll actually do it.
Badly implemented proprietary RAD software could easily have the unfortunate effect of splitting the Linux community into multiple camps: old-school programmers focusing on the kernel, system-level software, and server-side software, and RAD programmers focusing on client-side end-user software. That would be bad, as it would encourage the two communities to grow in different directions and result in a dichotomous view of what the OS should be
Re:GTK+ For Win32 has *BEEN* Availible.. (Score:1)
Re:Source Level Compatibility with Win32.. (Score:1)
Re:Yes, yes, it's a fantastic announcement... (Score:1)
He's also 1/16 Cherokee, but fortunately his name isn't Mr. Cheatum. The accent on the second syllable of his last name is more than strategic.
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:1)
The first compiler for the language B had to be written in PDP-7 assembly language, and then re-written in B. As the language was improved,
the improvements were used in its source code.
It took a mere four or five years for Thompson and Ritchie to go from nothing to C+UNIX.
Of course, having existing tools means that you don't have to go through the pain of bootstrapping yourself from nothing! But there is a fine semantic divide between ``difficult'' and ``impossible''.
Also, I did mention that early Linux was compiled with a Borland compiler, so your point about free software needing commercial tools at the outset is somewhat redundant.
Re:I don't think it's a good thing at all. (Score:1)
Of course, it's simpler to argue that GNU owes its existance to proprietary tech because it was developed as a response to it, but that's not the argument I'm trying to make. Although it makes an interesting corollary.
What I _am_ trying to point out is that using proprietary compilers to make free software does not make that software less free -- even if the code you release is bound to your proprietary compiler, anyone can come along and dwiddle it until it compiles under gcc or the like.
If we want to create a true 'freedom platform,' we'll need to go through the pain of bootstrapping from nothing -- CPU, BIOS, motherboard, bus architecture, everything that's not actually the sand and steel, and make sure everything's released under GPL or the like.
Eh. Sounds like a lot of work for a benefit that's mostly academic, although I am aware there's groups working on those things, OpenBIOS and all.
More power to'em. In the meantime, I'll exercise my freedom to partake of whatever software, hardware, and politics strike my fancy. And you please feel free to do the same.... (*grin)
--
Re:Theres a difference. (Score:2)
su -c 'rm -f
Daniel
The BDE is much better these days (Score:2)
While past versions of the BDE have been rather unstable, newer releases are much better. I had no problems at all with BDE V5 (Delphi/Builder V4).
It's the main reason my company switched over to C++.
The BDE (Borland Database Engine, for those who don't know) is a library. It is independent of language and compiler. Object Pascal or C++, it does not matter.
Now, if you mean that your company switched to MS Visual C++ and DAO, fine, but say so. (Although I find the idea of switch to DAO to avoid bugs hilarious.)
Re:A giant step closer to world domination for lin (Score:2)
One can imagine a future where a free software platform of Linux, KDE and/or Gnome, KOffice, etc. could actually be considered a competitive business desktop to Windows/Office for $500 cheaper. The big hitch is the inevitable in-house corporate applications written with VisualBasic, Delphi, VC, DBase, Lotus Notes, etc. Wine might be an answer, but obviously, the Delphi people are now in the best position to save some money on desktop software when the time comes.
Products like this, while not "free" are a critical piece of the free softwar puzzle simply because they open the door for migration.
Furthermore, my guess is that Linux support will appeal enough to IT managers that this move will increase Borland's Windows product sales, just so shops can hedge their long term bets against a Windows desktop.
Different goals for different people (Score:3)
Others are interested in the actual capturing of majority or total market share by open source software. This is a different goal, it tolerates the expediency of closed software for a later good or special circumstance, but still maintains open is always better when possible. For these folks, Delphi is expedient, get a lot of converts to an open OS now, replace Delphi with completely free tools later.
For some, open software fits some needs, closed software fits others. They may be strong Linux advocates, but they are neutrals in the proprietary/open source/free software war. These people may be looking forward to Delphi as a long term tool, or at least until something better for their purpose is written.
The Linux commercial interests are mostly closed/open/free agnostic, they need help for their bottom line now, and never mind how. They will be very pleased by Delphi for Linux, because it means they have a tool as good or better than VB for quick in-house programming by high level programmers. This covers a lot of business programming. This might help GM believe that their VB apps might port in reasonable time for example.
Then there is Microsoft, who will not be pleased at all. One of their biggest problems right now is loss of developers, and having Delphi and C++ Builder waiting will mean that developers can switch to Linux, or *BSD probably and be productive immediately thru RAD development.
I don't think of any of these being "wrong" just different approaches to meet different goals.
Personally, it's my belief that open software is a scaling phenomenon. It works better the more people are involved with it. Makes for more testing, shallower bugs, more new ideas, more developers working at once, more common software to draw on, and better ability to beg driver support for new hardware. So I'm in the camp that is wanting to expand open software's marketshare, even if it takes closed software to do it. When you've got positive feedback on your side, you need to take advantage of it, not hold back waiting. There are elements out there who are actively trying to shut down open software, or ridicule it into oblivion. Time matters, unfortunately.
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:2)
On the GUI front, I see three choices:
1. Use WINElib to make existing their Windows code work.
I find this unlikely. For one, Borland generally does not take cheap short-cuts. For another, I know Borland has cross-platform experience: Delphi is available for IBM's OS/400, which is not like UNIX or Windows, AFAIK. Lastly, if Borland pays any attention to the poll they ran, they will see most of their users who knew anything were against WINElib. (Nothing against the WINE folks here; I think it just means Windoze is a pain. We knew that.)
2. Wrap the VCL around GTK, Qt, or some other existing toolkit.
This seems likely. It would make Borland's job a lot easier. As a guess, I would say they would pick Qt. It is more like Windoze then GTK, by design, and Delphi is a Windoze product. Qt is also a little more OOPish then GTK, since Qt uses C++ while GTK uses C. Then again, the free (beer) license of GTK may be appealing.
I doubt we will see more then one toolkit used. It would only make everyone's job harder. Borland's, because they would have to do twice as much work; developers', because they would have to deal with two sets of quirks rather then one; users, because they have twice as many runtime libraries that might be needed.
The VCL is fairly good at abstracting away most of Windows. Sure, there are ways to get at the Windows internals directly. You will find that in any good abstraction (e.g., the C standard library). Borland knows that sometimes you have to go down a level or two. But, properly written code should minimize the number of places that has to be done, or not need to do it at all.
3. Write their own X widget set
There are already too many to count. What difference does one more make?
Compilers
They have already ported their compiler technology, at least in part. A Borland guy mentioned awhile back that they had the Delphi/Builder back-end compiler working on Linux already. Compared to GCC, it has both strengths and weaknesses. I think it is a fair bet they will do their own compiler; that is Borland's bread-and-butter, after all.
OWL
I do not know about OWL. C++Builder does include OWL libraries, headers, and source. The problem is, OWL is just as dependent on Windoze as VCL is, and I doubt Borland is going to port two libraries if they can help it.
(For those who are wondering: OWL is the Object Windows Library, a OOP GUI framework for Windows back when MFC was still a gleam in Microsoft's eye. VCL is the Visual Component Library, the successor to OWL. VCL is even more OOPish then OWL was, and makes Windoze programming doable.)
JVM or JBuilder?
It appears to be just the JVM. Borland has been promising JBuilder for Linux for a few months now, though, so I think we can expect to see a commercial Linux product there soon. Prolly the Solaris port will have to come out first; does anyone know the status of JBuilder on Solaris?
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:2)
You've got a good point, but, to be fair, the MESSAGE keyword is (or should be) used only when implementing wrapper code for Windoze events. In other words, if you're hacking Windoze, that keyword makes your job easier. If you are writting a portable application, you don't touch it.
It is similar (but not the same, I know) to the C standard library's strong resemblence to the UNIX system call API. Of source, the C standard library is not part of the C language proper, which is a key difference. The MESSAGE keyword is indeed rather a nasty wart in an otherwise fairly elegant language.
The VCL of course it full of code that calls the Win API, and is therefore quite specific to that API.
Now that is immaterial. Yes, the VCL is full of Win32 API calls on Windows. On OS/400, it would be full of OS/400 calls instead. The VCL interface remains reasonably constant accross implementations.
To continue the comparison with C, a C standard library implementation will be full of platform-specific code as well. However, the interface defined by the headers is the same. That is the whole point of a standard library, after all: To abstract away platform differences.
VCL is Object Pascal's standard library, and while not as pure as C's, it does a pretty good job. IMNSHO.
Re:I wish there were more details. (Score:2)
First, Borland has been working on this for awhile, so we cannot assume they have only six months to pull it off.
Second, the VCL has already been ported to IBM's OS/400 platform, so Borland already has some knowledge of cross-platform VCL implementations.
Third, when was the last time a non-trivial software product shipped on time?
They could also build a bigger VCL framework which encapsulates all the functions you would use in a program thus making those programs cross-platform.
AFAIK, they have already done pretty well in that department. If you are writting a generic (i.e., does not depend on goofy Microsoft services) program, your code can get away with pretty much just the VCL and Object Pascal. I/O, memory management, screen draw, can all be done within the framework of the VCL. The only major exception is getting the contents of a directory programmatically; you're still stuck with DOS/Windows FINDFIRST/FINDNEXT calls. Blech.
New Information! (Score:2)
Linux Today has more information about this, including:
This is not a port of Delphi or C++Builder, but rather, a completely new product.
Read the details about "Kylix" at Linux Today! [linuxtoday.com]
(I would post a complete copy, but that would be stealing from LT. Don't wanna do that.)