> 64-bit Delphi is the work on the new compiler architecture -- so that
That's a separate issue. The compiler is just the first step. Anyway I would have preferred the actual compiler tweaked to support 64 bit with a 64 bit VCL - and later a redesigned compiler - than waiting a long time for a new compiler and a new VCL.
> I disagree. The value of cross-platform tools is that the SAME codebase
> targets all platforms. The idea is that it should be possible to write
That's the Holy Grail noone ever found - and noone will. Every attempt ended up in GUIs that look so-so or bad on every supported platform, or look alien on every platfom. There are still too many differences in widgets, underlying APIs and standards to use the same code, the amount of compromises needed is large enough to undermine the same meaning of "native" applications. And given the resources available at Embarcadero, I really wonder if they can even get close to the Grail.
> have to learn a new framework to target the Mac I'm not going to bother
I think the opposite. Each platform I target needs its own native application. Sharing some code is good, but I do not care if I need to develop different interfaces to target the native GUI needed. If my application looks ugly on each supported platform, I have no advantage over true native applications.
> That's true ... but a good cross-platform framework can support the Mac
> well enough -- and "well enough" is certainly better than "not at all",
"Well enough" is in the eye of the beholder. What is will enough for you may not be for me, and I prefer not at all and have a state-of-the-art Windows tool that have a tool that is somewhat "well-enough" on several platforms but "very well" on none.