What will be the Delphi Project X Cross GUI ?
- Qt4
- wxWindows
- VCL 2.0
- ???

Ralf Stocker a __crit :
  (snip)

My estimation is that you just want to start yet another speculative
  thread because you are bored.
  Joanna
  --

Ralf Stocker wrote:
  (snip)
Only Embt can answer this. I would prefer a VCL 2.0 but I doubt that
  will happen. And I hope it won't be a CLX 2.0.
  --
  Andreas Hausladen

Just a short lock at the numbers...
  Qt4.6 1.45 GB (~31.000 files)
  wxWindows 2.9 0.20 GB (~24.000 files)
  VCL D2009 0.05 GB (~ 1.200 files)
  

(snip)

.... and your point is? The VCL (especially the 'visual' part) just
    wraps a more fundamental API, so of course it's going to be much
    smaller than the other two. As for QT vs wxWindows, well doesn't the
    former provide a rather more high level interface for its consumers? If
    so, then again, one would expect it to be bigger.

On 03.01.2010 22:01, Andreas Hausladen wrote:
    (snip)

According to history (CLX 1.0), CLX 2.0 means Qt4 plus Delphi wrappers.
    What is bad about that?
    
    

Joanna Carter wrote:
    (snip)

Sure sure, and mayby he is just really interested in what direction
    they *could* go or if there are more posibilities next to the 3 items
    he mentioned.
    Its a big step for codegear and for us so why not speculate?

Joanna Carter wrote:
    (snip)

With no firm information available people, if interested in something,
    often try to speculate. It is I guess part of human nature.
    To avoid that, the good solution would be to provide more information
    if possible.

Ralf Stocker wrote:
  (snip)
Qt4 isn't the problem. The problem is that I remember what I did in
  2002-2005 for the Kylix "Community".
  --
  Andreas Hausladen

(snip)

Unless they're writing a VCL 2.0 as Andreas said, I think reviving CLX remains the only acceptable solution timewise.
  Does anyone know if they started a private beta program or not?
  Utku.
  
  

On 03.01.2010 22:47, Andreas Hausladen wrote:
    (snip)

Maybe we could recycle some things... ;-)
    
    
    

Zenon Jordan a __crit :
  y
  (snip)

In that case, you really need to ask EMBT directly; they really are the
  only people who know anything more.
  Then you can tell all of us what they tell you :-)

Joanna Carter wrote:
    (snip)

And the problem with that is......?
    --
    Nick Hodges
    Delphi Development Manager

(snip)
Woot? After only 16 years on VCL 1.0?
  
  
  
  

Joanna Carter wrote:
    (snip)

Good idea!
    Do you know any talkative people there?
    
    

On 3-1-2010 22:46, Zenon Jordan wrote:
  (snip)

Apart from the GUI stuff, I'd be really interested if "X-Platform"
  means that each platform can also target databases that reside
  on a different platform.
  I would have been happy to use Kylix if it had had MSSQL

(snip)
It wouldn't be private if that was known to us would it? ;)
    
    
    
    

utku karatas wrote:
    (snip)

For the record, i'm not much into cross platform (except some
    windows-mobile using lazarus/fpc), but out of interest, what would have
    to be changed in a vcl-2 to be cross platform (in a crude approach)?
    Why would only CLX be the only option (i never really liked the

Zenon Jordan wrote:
  (snip)

They all love to talk, but I'm not sure if they are allowed to.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "You can't step twice into the same river."

On 1/3/2010 2:56 PM, Joanna Carter wrote:
    (snip)

How is it that certain posters who never use Delphi, are exclusive
    Macophiles and routinely insult the rest of us are still allowed to be
    TeamB members?
    

(snip)
That you get a wrapper over a wrapper. And a over a wrapper the design of is beyond Embarcadero control. IMHO it means slower performance and lots of compromises to accomodate different designs and aims. Especially if compatibility among the native API VCL and a VCL wrapped over another wrapper has to be mantained. And the last thing I wish to see is a Windows Qt-VCL or the like.
  
  
  
  

(snip)

The first rule of beta program is you don't talk about beta program? That must be a hardcore beta process Embt. runs :)
  
  
  
  

"utku karatas" wrote on Sun, 3 Jan 2010 14:05:56 -0800:
    (snip)
If someone tells you they have, they'd be breaking their NDA.
    --
    Better Web Sites Sell More Software: http://www.vexelfire.com
    Brandon Staggs

On 04.01.2010 16:22, Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

+1
    But I doubt that the VCL can talk to Linux and Mac API within 1
    year...Emba hasn't that manpower. And Qt exists for 19 years.
    

On 04.01.2010 16:44, utku karatas wrote:
    (snip)

....with hardcore bugs in the RTM iso ;-)
    
    
    

(snip)

I'm not experienced either but I think coming up with a whole new framework is a lot harder than just wrapping your already existing solution. Look at QT, yeah it sure looks good now but how many years and how many versions did it take to get there? (So is Rails, Django, etc.. These might sound newish to you but even they are at least 5 year old frameworks. Any reputable framework earned that reputation by not losing in the time test. How would Embt. compete in such a short time frame if they come up with
  a new GUI framework? Would they even risk it I am doubtful.)
  Utku.
  
  

Mark Andrews a __crit :
  (snip)

Because not all members of TeamB are here purely for Delphi and, with
  the proposed Project X targetting Mac, don't you think it would be
  useful to have someone on TeamB to help all those Mac newbies with any
  problems?

Brandon Staggs a __crit :
  (snip)
But, if someone tells you they are not on the beta, they are either
  lying or they are not on the beta.
  Joanna
  --

(snip)
By basing their framework on Qt, they wouldn't be competing, they would
    be repeating one of the mistake of D.Net, by essentially saying that
    "hey, we're not good enough to do it ourselves, so we're using XXX which
    is better than what we could have come up with"
    The answer in that case would be the same as with .Net: if there exists

Joanna,
    (snip)

Does recruited mean that you are paid for it?
    I thought that you are posting here in your spare time.
    --
    Roman

(snip)

May be Lazarus/FPC interfaces?
  
  
  
  

utku karatas wrote:
    (snip)

NDAs usually prohibit this, yes.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
    "Science is what people understand well enough to explain to a

Hello,
  if you ask the right persons they might not give you a definite answer
  but maybe some hints about other ways to find out or so.
  In every case persons worh asking would be Nick and Mike for instance.
  David I might also be a good idea.

Am 04.01.2010 16:44, schrieb utku karatas:
    (snip)

About EMBT's rules for betas you'd better ask EMBT directly.
    Greetings
    Markus
    

Roman Kassebaum a __crit :
  (snip)
You must be joking. The most we get is free product; which isn't worth
  much if you don't have clients who use those products and require your
  services with those products.
  (snip)
Believe it or not, TeamB do what they do out of loyalty to the people

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

It means you can't apply for a position in TeamB, you are chosen.
  (snip)
Don't know about Joanna, but I surely am and I guess she is too. I
  doubt her clients want her to spend their time helping others.
  --

extjs or jquery
  
  
  
  

Markus Humm wrote:
  (snip)

Isn't this enough?
  "What We Expect From Our Field Testers"
  http://dn.embarcadero.com/article/40234
  --

(snip)
.... that Embarcadero will leave its customers in the total dark until it will roll out a lame solution.
  
  
  
  

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Eric Grange wrote:
  (snip)

No, there's a big difference between "we're not good enough" and "if we
  were going to do this we should have started five years ago".
  (snip)

That depends on what "the real thing" is ... one answer that will apply
  in most cases is because "the real thing" probably has a C/C++ interface

(snip)

That was what "shocked" me when the news that xplat has precedence over 64 bit came out. Going 64 would have required some adjustements, but not a whole new VCL (although after so many years the Windows VCL itself needs a redesing), while targeting Linux and Mac *properly* needs two whole new frameworks - and even if they their Linux/BSD kernels may share something, the layers above the kernel may be pretty different, especially the GUIs. A "lame" solution on both platforms IMHO won't be appealing at all
  to "foreign" developers - beside fulfilling Embarcadero own xplat needs (and maybe some customers'). And while under Linux many could accept a subpar GUI in exchange of being able to deliver server applications on that platform, the Mac is all about the GUI - and if you target the Mac you don't target the average data-entry guy, nobody buys him a Mac.
  I always thought xplat as a multi-year incremental effort - I know that using Qt as they did with CLX is the faster and requiring less resources approach, but the one that will cause many issues too in the long run.
  
  

utku karatas wrote:
    (snip)

I wasn't commenting on beta or program, but on your oxymoron (or close to
    anyways) of asking about a private thing in public ;)
    
    

(snip)

I've been wondering... can't you just stay quiet if you have nothing interesting and valuable to say?
    No answer preferred.
    
    
    

Joanna,
    (snip)

I do believe you. I only misunderstood the term "to recruit".
    --
    Roman
    

Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

Wow, what faith. I'm touched.
    --
    Allen Bauer
    Embarcadero Chief Scientist

"Allen Bauer" <✉spicedham.codegear.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

Maybe CLX has something to do with it? :) This aside, it would certainly be
  nice to know what you guys have in mind...
  Alan

Captain Mockba wrote:
  (snip)

I found it spot on, and therefore very valuable.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

It seems to me that (unless I've missed something) you probably haven't
    understood what's actually been said.
    As I understand it the thing that is going to be done before producing
    64-bit Delphi is the work on the new compiler architecture -- so that

"Alan Garny" wrote on Tue, 5 Jan 2010 10:21:29 -0800:
    (snip)

Obviously if they give us an outline of what they are currently doing,
    the newsgroups will explode with complaints (no matter what they are
    doing), so I can understand why they wouldn't want to bother.
    Still, it would be nice to have some idea of the immediate future of

Daniel James wrote:
  (snip)

That may be nice for new projects -- but how am I going to take any of
  my large applications, which rely heavily on various DevEx components,
  such as the Quantum Grid, the Scheduler, and a host of others -- and
  recompile them for the Mac?

(snip)
Well between CLX and the amount of UI glitches that can be found in the
  Delphi IDE (flickering, misalignments, etc.) or the UI behaviors
  tolerated from the new help (laggyness, flickerings, impractical
  layouts...), there is certainly a lot of trust you have to rebuild as
  far as GUIs are concerned, at every level of it.

"Brandon Staggs" wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

What difference would that make? People would just complain a few months
  earlier, that's all. :)
  (snip)

That's one reason indeed.

"Joanna Carter" <✉no.spam.for.me> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

Unfortunately most of your posts here over the past year exhibit nothing
    more than you would expect from a Mac fanboy(/girl).
    CB

Charles B a __crit :
  (snip)

Maybe because, for the first time in around 20 years of using computers
  I am actually enjoying the experience, not fighting with an unreliable
  operating system.
  Even when I do use Windows in a VM, it's so much more reassuring that I

(snip)
Kylix worked just fine accessing MSSQL, by installing UnixODBC and FreeTDS, and using cross platform ODBC components. I used it, worked well. Sorry you didn't research this thoroughly enough at the time that you were interested. Then you could have invested significant resources & time in +upgrading+ your server side systems like myself and many others did, only to have your tools vendor pull the rug out from under you with extreme +silence+.
    David Keith
    
    
    

Hello,
    Joanna Carter wrote:
    (snip)

FWIW, I'd really appreciate some kind of document that points out the
    advantages XCode has over other environments. Such advantages clearly
    seem to exist since many Mac programmers praise XCode, but I never

Moritz Beutel   (snip)

I don't know, off hand, of any such document.
  My experience has been that, as a Mac newbie, I really didn't know what
  I was doing with Xcode and ended up just getting frustrated and hoping
  it wouldn't be long before somebody brought out a VS or Delphi for Mac.

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Loren Szendre wrote:
    (snip)

I'm sure that's true, yes. You have to build for cross-platform from the
    start.
    (snip)

I don't know your products so I can't say how well that has worked for
    you, but I have seen very few applications in which the 'specialization'

Daniel James wrote:
  (snip)

Exactly. When you start using a new architecture on any level, it takes
  significant time for it to infiltrate into all stages of planning,
  designing, development and testing. For example, we started using
  RemObjects Data Abstract years ago -- and yet we're still finding ways

(snip)

100% agreed.
    3rd party tooling will lag (if ever coming) and without it, there's not that much advantage Delphi can offer. Richness of 3rd party offerings (be it free or commercial) was always the strong reason for choosing Delphi (as it was for Turbo Pascal (my first one was on CP/M)). I'm afraid that that market is diminishing and remaining (although vocal) users are begining to sound like retired Cobol programmers(*).
    LP,
    Dejan
    

(snip)

For me: enjoying means nice cigar, excellent cognac and great sex - not fiddling with a OS: that's work. Work I do for a living. Being 2 man shop that means market niches. And chasing percents of promilles of 3% market shares (see: http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html) doesn't seem very sound plan.
    To each his own, I guess.
    Dejan
    
    

Dejan Stanic wrote:
  (snip)

Yeah, I hear a lot about the 3rd party market diminishing. But that's
  not a bad thing, necessarily. 8-10 years ago, if you searched the
  Internet for a something like Com Port components, you would find many
  (perhaps dozens) available, some free, some shareware and some fully

On 07.01.2010 00:53, Dejan Stanic wrote:
  (snip)

Wow! 2.5%
  
  
  

(snip)

Birds of a feather flock together :P
    I expect TeamB'ers respond technical questions instead of flamewars and such.
    
    
    

G?khan Ers#mer wrote:
  (snip)

I respond to what I think I should respond. This is a non-technical
  group, after all.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

Dejan Stanic wrote:
  (snip)

Hmmm... I very much enjoy writing a good piece of code. And I'm not
  very fond of cigars.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

(snip)

And how much is Delphi's market share? I'm just saying............
    
    
    
    

"Dejan Stanic" wrote:
  (snip)

I can well relate to your concept of enjoyment!!!
  Work I do for a living. Being 2 man shop that means market niches. And
  chasing percents of promilles of 3% market shares (see:
  http://www.systemshootouts.org/mac_sales.html) doesn't seem very sound plan.

Phillip Woon wrote:
  (snip)

You mean out of that 2.5% ?
  If yes, then I think the answer is nore or less 0%, or rather to be more precise it is 0% +/-0% .
  Regards,
  Zenon

I've made my hobby my work. And yes that means i'm sometimes writing code in
  my own time and having a good time doing so. (see www.pictoselector.eu as a
  result).
  The benefit of spare time programming is the luxery of being user / chief /
  customer etc at the same time. In my work i have to meet goals of others.

Ralf Stocker wrote:
  (snip)

I would say they are working on a Delphi MVC/MVP type framework.
  Custom GUI wrappers for QT, Cocoa, Win32, etc would somehow be installed
  into the Delphi IDE to be used in the GUI designer. IOW you could have
  multiple dfm files to target your different platforms with native View

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

All things considered, this is pretty mild for non-tech. You could
  deliver cross platform, native 64 bit and cold fusion (not CFM) in the
  next release, and somebody will still complain.
  Still, I wouldn't mind seeing some more blogging about what's going on.

(snip)
You're right. Till now we had "faith". And in exchange we often had pretty hard times. Many half-baked or broken solutions (localization, midas, the many internet framework attempts, dbExpress before 4, WS support, Indy, CLX, Eco, etc. etc.). You released a whole new remoting framework without ever thinking about *security* and how to plug it into a real enterprise network.
  Sorry if we lost "faith", and like St. Thomas, we would like to *see* before *believing*.
  BorCodeDero reminds me how Western countries assessed USSR arsenal, looking at what was displayed on Red Square parades and trying to infer which weapons were ready and which were not, which technologies were known and which not, and trying to guess what was cooking under the cover.
  Telling your customer now how you are going to implement xplat GUI will allow the to decide if Delphi will be *their* way to go xplat, or if their requirements need a different tool. For you nothing changes - those who won't find your xplat approach appealing will use other tools anyway - you avoid to turn hopeful customers into disgrunted ones later, you'll just allow them to plan their xplat future earlier and with the right knowledge - as it is expected by a technology partner. Instead you often work a
  gainst your own customers, once it was SOX, not it is whatever else, and we don't understand why. We're just left unable to plan for our product future, that in turn it's often yours too.

Am 07.01.2010 14:59, schrieb Bruce McGee:
    (snip)

I suspect that as for previous versions they start blogging at a late
    stage of the development process, otherwise it's simply too vague in
    many cases. And they already blogged as much that clever readers would
    get that they must be working on something for the Mac currently.

Hello,
    where did you get that knowledge from?
    Greetings
    Markus
    

Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

I hate the lack of information too. I wish I could say more. But the
    cold hard reality is that if we divulge too much too soon, sales of the
    current product tank, layoffs happen, pay is cut and we are left with
    less people, less time, and more work. I've seen it happen many times.

(snip)

That depends only on what each release delivers. If a release is just useful to fix the bugs of the previous two, and delivers very little more, yes, people will wait. I would have upgraded instantly if D2010 had a DCOM-free *real* remoting framework. Unluckily I need AD authentication/authorization and communication protection - which DCOM has. My company is still on D2007 and it's up to me to decide when to upgrade - or to switch to something else.
  Because I can't see what direction Delphi is taking *really*, I have issue to decide what to do. Is upgrading to D2010 worth it? Should we go full Unicode with Delphi or wait, because if the direction it takes diverges from ours we could be forced switch to something else, and the expense of upgrading - including all third party tools used -, and updating code doesn't pay off? I don't know, and I am forced to plan defensively, because the risk is getting too high for us.
  Maybe if you divulge too little too late, sales tank too, because you really ask for a "faith" that wasn't supported by "miracles" in the recent years.
  (snip)
And you repeated this problem with Delphi.NET. Now Delphi developers need sound solutions and some real hints about the future of the tool, because it is becoming very difficult to "sell" it to upper management.
  

"Luigi Sandon" wrote in message news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)
....
    (snip)

I agree. If they dont give out an appropriate level of information about
    where the product is going, they face a more real risk of people having no
    choice but look elsewhere. If someone wanted to start a project that they'd

Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

Fair enough. We always know that only a certain percentage of the
    customer base upgrades each cycle. If it's not a compelling upgrade for
    you, I can respect that.
    (snip)

The opposite has been proven time and time again. I've not seen the

"Allen Bauer" <✉spicedham.codegear.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

Allen, your other post is exactly the kind of info I think helps the most.
  It shows a) there's active development and b) the rationale about why
  you're doing what we already know you're doing. You dont have to

Allen,
  Kudos for your posts today!
  --
  Q
  01/07/2010 14:08:02

"Allen Bauer" wrote on Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:08:07 -0800:
  (snip)

That is a reasonable explanation, and anyone who markets products to
  end-users should be able to relate.
  --
  Better Web Sites Sell More Software: http://www.vexelfire.com

Hello,
    Joe Demartino wrote:
    (snip)

+1.
    --
    Moritz

Brandon Staggs wrote:
    (snip)

If we had an annuity, like an OS or mainstream productivity
    applications, that would consistently support our dev-tool efforts we
    would not have to be as nearly "self-supporting."
    --

Markus Humm wrote:
  (snip)
Markus, To me "I would say they are..." implies an opinion, not
  knowledge.
  
  

(snip)
enough to
    (snip)
+1
    Eric
    
    

(snip)

If SA turned into a *real* maintenace program and support cycles get longer than six months, backporting important fixes to older releases that often need to be still in use, we would be happy to buy it and give you an "annuity". For example we pay for the Oracle OPN, but at least for all its duration we see real advantages that we didn't see when we bough SA. They don't support actively the latest release only.
  Today SA is just a bet, and can hurt "early upgraders" because in the end all you get is the newer release, and if you get SA too early the next release can be rolled out when SA is expired and needs renewing - and at that point "cherry-picking" upgrades may become more economical.
  Also promoting other Embarcadero applications like Interbase would be smart - right now not allowing the Pro sku to connect to remote IB servers just help cutting IB sales telling developers that is better to go to SQL Server and ADO, or use alternative libraries and use MySQL or Postgres.
  
  

Am 07.01.2010 23:10, Quentin Correll wrote:
    (snip)

+1
    --
    Regards
    Jens

Markus Humm wrote:
  (snip)

From my brain
  Siegfried
  
  

"James Smith"
    (snip)
extjs rocks! delphi rules!
    happy fishes!
    http://prime.fmsoft.net/out/dbdemo.dll
    

Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

Those are all excellent suggestions. I would recommend you contact
    Michael Rozlog, the RAD Studio Product Manager, and voice your
    suggestions. He needs to hear from as many of you as possible. If he
    can come up with a plan and a business case that can clearly show a NET

Am 08.01.2010 01:38, schrieb Doug Chamberlin:
    (snip)

Yes you are right. I just wanted to sort of force him to express this
    more clearly. Nearly everybody here has opinions about nearly
    everything, but they're mostly mood. Reality matters and in this case
    you just can't know what they're up to until they tell you.

Am 08.01.2010 10:39, schrieb Siegfried Niedinger:
    (snip)

So you've made it up. Ok.
    Greetings and a nice snowy weekend
    Markus
    

(snip)
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.
  (snip)

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.
  (snip)
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.
  (snip)

"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.
  

(snip)

What is standard on one platform may not be on others. Office features like ribbons and outlook grids and bars are pretty standard on Windows, but not on Linux. MacOS has its own standard. Each user expext his own standard.
  (snip)

The best business logic is almost useless if the user can't interact with it in the way he expects on his platform.
  (snip)

The problem is what tools Delphi aims to be. Actually it is a tool capable of delivering failry complex native GUIs on Windows. Would turning it into a xplat Jack-of-all-trades-and-master-of.none be a smart move? Is it what Delphi developers needs? Delphi developers today are not xplat developers - if they don't use Java or C++/Qt there is a reason.
  
  

Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

I've been thinking about that issue a lot lately. For instance, I have
    been trying to standardize on Open Office for the past several years.
    There are lots of quirks that make me wonder if it was simply a bad
    design, or if the code was written to be x-plat. One example is that

"Luigi Sandon" wrote in message news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

I dont know why people keep on saying that. QT is cross platform and *very*
    thorough. wxWidgets is cross platform w/ native widgets. Real Basic is
    cross platform (even if the IDE itself is limited). FPC/Laz is cross
    platform... with interchangable gui toolkits to boot. Heck, I maintain a

Loren Szendre wrote:
  (snip)

this is the point I have been thinking for while.
  People complaing about the Mac version,
  maybe where they see a problem actually exist an opportunity.
  Cesar

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

Sure, there are toolkits. But can any of them come even close to
  providing me what I can do with a combination of DevEx, TMS, RemObjects
  and TurboPower (my core component libraries)?
  I'm not disagreeing with your point -- it's just that you have to look

"Loren Szendre" <✉yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

I concede that if the components arent available, you wont be able to port
    your app using those components. But whats the alternative if you want a
    mac version? The only alternative is a complete re-write in another

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

It's like those heavier-than-air flying machines -- nobody can make one,
    and noone ever will.
    It may be that you don't happen to like the results that can be achieved
    with the current crop of cross-platform tools, but that doesn't mean

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. I may have to "dumb-down" some of the
  screens, but that won't keep me from re-using A LOT of code, when
  releasing a lite-version of Product X for the Mac.
  (snip)

Believe me, I'm counting on it. I already have declarations from Marc

Loren,
    (snip)

I don't know which Turbo Power components you are using, but I'm trying
    to support all upcoming Delphi versions with Abbrevia, LockBox, OnGuard
    and Orpheus.
    --

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

That's true ... and that's why a cross-platform framework should not try
    to produce applications that look the same on all platforms.
    Java made that mistake in ... was it Swing? ... every app looks just
    like a crappy Swing app on every platform. That's no way to design for

Hello,
  did you see/use Windows 7 yet?
  Look at its paint application. it uses the ribbon now, even after I told
  them in the beta cycle I don't like this idea! ;-)
  Greetings

On 09.01.2010 18:19, Markus Humm wrote:
    (snip)

Who needs Ribbon?
    
    
    

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

I'm glad to hear that. LockBox is the most important for us, followed by
  SysTools, AsyncPro and OnGuard, in that order.
  Loren sZendre
  

Loren,
    (snip)

LockBox is without GUI. It shouldn't be an issue to port it to other
    platforms.
    Have you tried the OnGuard version from sourceforge? I only compiled it.
    I never worked with it.

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

Haven't tried OnGuard in D2009+ yet. LockBox works fine in Unicodeville
  (and as you say, should smoothly port to other platforms). I've already
  ported (to D2009+) the barcode components that I need from SysTools --
  and those components should go x-plat very easily, as I simply call the

Loren,
    (snip)

I just looked at the sourceforge project. The zip-Archive is from 2005.
    Does it work with Unicode?
    BTW, do you write you name Szendre or sZendre?
    --

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

I'll check it out. It hasn't been a priority to get the entire SysTools
  library working in D2009+, since my early port works fine for us (for
  the apps that we have ported to D2009+, we only need a handful of the
  barcode components therefrom). But! I would love to have the entire

(snip)
Or like faster-than-light machines? Standards across platforms can be so different framework can start to hit a barrier not easy to overcome - and the more the framework attempts to be fully xplat the more massive it becomes...
  (snip)

I use Wireshark, but hate its GTK interface. I use Oracle SQL Developer where I can't have Quest SQL Navigator, but I hate its Java interface. At least they are free tools aimed at IT professionals. When average users are in play, delivering the proper interface may be what can make them buy.
  (snip)
They are just one approach to xplat. If you're a C developer without high GUI requirements they're ok. How much they can improve I do not know - it's not just a matter of widgets, is a matter of overall GUI design and workflow.
  (snip)

Most of the application I buy have failry complex GUIs with their own custom controls.
  

(snip)

Let's see... there are so many subtle and not-so-subtle differences to take care.
  (snip)

No. In Windows 7 ribbons are a standard API - and you may like it or not, but Office always set Windows interface standards well before Windows itself.
  (snip)

There's something contradictory in what you wrote - who cares of an *agnostic* access to the *native set of each platform*? There is the problem that the intersection of those sets is different from its union, and GUIs are much more than a set of widgets.
  (snip)

So what shoud a framework abstract?
  (snip)

Well, compare a VCL GUI and a Qt one...

I hope readers appreciate what a champion for TurboPower tools they have in Roman. These tools were once maintained by a team of developers who were paid to create them over a period of years, with technical support from Borland and with the advantage of a big group of active beta testers and users. Now consider that Roman is attempting to keep these valuable products viable pretty much by himself as a volunteer.
    That's a grand goal of making these venerable tools work with all future versions of Delphi, although we don't have any idea really what that means. I suspect that it may be a pretty big challenge to many of the existing third party toolkits. I've ported a number of Delphi packages to Free Pascal and Lazarus and this was quite a challenge, not helped by my own deficiencies as a tool developer (I had never even created a custom component before) and the work-in-progress nature of the Lazarus LCL.
    What works for Windows may not make sense on other platforms. Furthermore, it's possible that we're not the audience for Delphi X. As the inexorable shift to mobile computing continues, this will attract lots of new developers of all sorts to the various mobile platforms that emerge. That may be the real audience for Delphi X, not current Delphi users who are comfortable with VCL. Currently with mobile computing that starts with iPhone OS and to get there you have to go through OS X. The iPhone UI classes
    (UIWIndow, UIButton, etc.) are pretty close to the traditional OS X Cocoa NS classes (NSWindow, NSButton, etc.), but slimmed down and cleaned up, making them easier to use and understand. If you've worked with the NS classes, you're ready to work with the UI classes for iPhone OS. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Apple introduced the UI classes for OS X too at some point as a way to consolidate everything in one set of classes.
    Part of me hopes that we don't get what we're wishing for, meaning a cross-platform VCL. The new group of mobile developers won't care about VCL and might even reject a tool that makes them use VCL. They want to use the UIAccelerometer class, not some wrapper surrogate.

Farshad,
  Most impressive!
  For readers who are not quite sure what they're looking at here, what Farshad has done is create a Web app that is running compiled Delphi code (using ExtPascal classes) on the server. This Delphi app serves up the Ext JS JavaScript controls and additional JS code that's delivered as needed using Ajax techniques.
  The only thing odd that jumps out at me from this app (and it's not Farshad's fault) is the excessive number of decimal digits for the fish length in inches that Borland stores in the biolife database. Either that's supposed to be a bit of a joke or somebody didn't understand significant digits. Anytime you see original data like this that's rounded to the nearest 10 (as in 50 cm, 150 cm, etc.) that means these are just rough estimates of the lengths (if not just wild-ass guesses). Accordingly, the values
  in inches should also be just rough estimates, with at most perhaps one decimal digit. 13 decimal digits is just so weird. What was Borland thinking? Can anyone offer a sane explanation?

(snip)
SWT (widget-toolkit for Java, from Eclipse developers) is pretty good,
    since it uses native controls, not perfect but close, especially on Windows.
    
    
    

Hello,
  Farshad Mohajeri wrote:
  (snip)

how cool is that?
  Now do I go to sleep, or do I check out ExtPascal? :)
  --

For best results, I would suggest starting with the SVN files for ExtPascal since SVN now includes the wrappers for Ext JS already generated so you don't have to do that. Even though that step was documented and easy to do, it eluded some users, so Wanderlan is now just including the wrapper classes in ExtPascal. All you need really then is the latest 3.1.0 Ext JS (www.extjs.com) and a Web server.
    There's also an optional toolkit for ExtPascal included in SVN that includes a fmtoextp converter that you can use to convert existing Delphi .dfm files to ExtPascal code. As a proof of concept you might use this on an existing VCL app. If you're using VCL controls that are supported by ExtPascal, you'll likely have very quickly a working Web app, albeit without any actual server code yet, mostly just the basic UI, which will resemble your desktop app in look. That might be one way of easing into ExtPasc
    al.
    svn checkout http://extpascal.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ [your_folder]
    Thanks.

"Phil Hess" wrote in message news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

Looks really interesting!
  Thanks.
  -d
  

Here's Wanderlan's on-line ExtPascal demo:
    http://extpascal.call.inf.br/cgi-bin/extpascalsamples.cgi
    With each example, you can click the Show Source Code button to see that Pascal code behind it. He's using a CodePress widget that supports syntax highlighting to show the source. Normally you wouldn't post the Pascal source on your server but he's doing it here to show that there's nothing too complicated about it all.
    This demo is actually a bit out of date. The current SVN version now has file upload and download examples too.
    Thanks.

Phil Hess wrote:
  (snip)

I couldn't agree more. Roman has been simply amazing and has made an
  incalcuable contribution to the Delphi community.
  --
  Nick Hodges

Nick Hodges wrote:
    (snip)

May he live a thousand years!
    Loren sZendre
    
    

Phil Hess a __crit :
  (snip)

FMPOV, even if X-VCL gives us UI wrappers for controls, what would
  happen to the concept of Cocoa bindings? Using Interface Builder to
  specify bindings is really simple and so powerful, compared with having
  to write code to connect up ontrols to properties of objects manually.

Loren,
    (snip)

The version from Sebastian, you can find it under
    http://www.songbeamer.com/delphi/ seems to work with D2009+.
    Maybe, you can compare the barcode component with yours and if necessary
    merge them.

Phil,
  (snip)
these a very friendly words. Thank you very much.
  But please don't forget that I'm not doing the work alone. I have a lot
  of help from Sebastian, Craig, Quentin, Nick, yourself and maybe in the
  future from Loren.

Am 09.01.2010 20:38, schrieb Ralf Stocker:
  (snip)

I didn't say one needs it, but it's implemented by MS now!
  So it seems to be included in the standard API somehow now or at least
  MS compiler's solution has been used which would be even worse: sort of
  declaring ribbons a new standard but not providing a API in the OS itsself.

Markus Humm a __crit :
    (snip)

I would question how you can have a cross-platform UI library that
    allows a developer to design a Windos app with a ribbon and "simply
    recompile" it to work on OS X?
    Joanna

Hello,
  thank you for elaborating on this!
  As you see, I decided for sleeping yesterday :) I'll look at ExtPascal
  later this day.
  --

Am 10.01.2010 11:12, schrieb Joanna Carter:
  (snip)

Why? If that framework implements the whole ribbon stuf on Mac OS X on
  its own this would work. And don't tell me this couldn't be done if
  enough effort is invested!
  (I'm not saying I'd need that!)

Markus Humm a __crit :
    (snip)

I suppose that's, sort of, my point. Unless someone is prepared to
    "emulate" what are presently single-platform compoents, it's never going
    to be a "simple recompile".
    So, for most apps, that is going to mean devolving down to the lowest

(snip)

Right, Cocoa rules. But with Delphi X we don't even know yet what kind of interface to Cocoa it will have. Will it be via some third party product like Qt? Or a bridge? Or extensions to the language itself (like what they did years ago to fit better with Windows)?
    The Free Pascal boys have taken the radical step of creating a new Objective Pascal dialect to support ObjC (and thus Cocoa classes).
    http://wiki.freepascal.org/FPC_PasCocoa
    This is going all the way, with few compromises. And it allows a parser to generate the ObjP classes from the ObjC header files all in one swoop. The result is a single unit, CocoaAll, that has all the Cocoa classes. A similar parser does the same thing for the iPhone UI classes, producing the iPhoneAll unit.
    Look at the NoNib .zip file here for a simple app that uses the CocoaAll unit. As a proof of concept it does not use any .nib files, but of course they can also be used:

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Joanna Carter wrote:
  (snip)

That's true, of course: Unless the framework provides its own platform
  -specific implementation of widgets that are not available on a given
  platform it can only provide a complete abstraction of the widgets that
  are available on all the platforms it covers.

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)

I don't see any contradiction there. The framework provides an API that
    the application uses to control the GUI, but the actual actions of the
    API calls vary appropriately from platform to platform. The framework
    presents the same API to the application on all platforms, but the

Luigi Sandon wrote:
    (snip)
I would say don't use these tools!
    Have you looked at RealBASIC. It is monolithic but still very usable and
    truly xplat in all manner. It supports Win/Mac/Linux. It is better than
    Delphi in all way for anyone who is looking for a way to build multiple

Phil Hess wrote:
    (snip)
es
    (snip)
Thanks for this detailed explanation.
    I think everyone interested in xplat should link with Mark Wood on
    LinkedIn. I am just astonished to see as to how his company has

Am 10.01.2010 09:41, Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

You mean "didn't" ;).
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_%C3%9F
  --
  Regards

Jens,
    (snip)

if I may quote the German version
    (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9Fes_%C3%9F):
    "Sie ist nicht Bestandteil der offiziellen deutschen Rechtschreibung."
    --

Am 11.01.2010 12:54, Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

Ok, I overlooked that. Maybe with the next "Rechtschreibreform".
  --
  Regards
  Jens

Am 11.01.2010 13:06, schrieb Jens M__hlenhoff:
    (snip)

Hopefully not. No big use in even extending this!
    And I also hope the french circumflex dies. The only meaning I knot it
    has is, that there was a letter s some day at this place. But historic
    letters s which aren't used any more and aren't pronunced are simply one

"Yogi Yang" <✉gmail.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)
I tried realbasic. I really tried. The problem is, while the language
  itself is fine and pretty complete and cross platform, its IDE is painfully
  limiting. You can only see one function at a time, for example. And since

Markus,
  (snip)
I try to avoid the "__" in my name. IMO it is simply wrong.
  --
  Roman Kassebaum
  

Jens,
    (snip)
I really hope that there will be no next "Rechtschreibreform". :-)
    --
    Roman
    

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

How is it pronounced? Does the first part rhyme on Ma__e or on Masse?
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
    Shaw's Principle: Build a system that even a fool can use, and

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

I thought that s-set was neither capital nor lower case, as it exists as
  a single code-point. It's certainly tall enough to not look out of place
  when a word is all-caps.
  Loren sZendre

Rudy,
  (snip)
Masse.
  My name is a simple concatenation of "Kasse" and "Baum".
  --
  Roman

Loren,
    (snip)

In German orthography the "__" is lower case.
    --
    Roman
    

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

Then an __ would indeed give people the wrong pronunciation.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
    "There are very few monsters who warrant the fear we have of

Loren Szendre wrote:
    (snip)

It is lower case.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
    "How wrong it is for a woman to expect the man to build the world

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
  (snip)

Why? Es-set is a simple orthographic replacement, and never modifies the
  word phonologically or morphologically (I believe it can never cross
  morpheme boundaries).
  Loren sZendre

Loren Szendre wrote:
    (snip)

No, it isn't. An __ in words like Ma__e, Stra__e, Fu__, etc. means the
    preceding vowel must be pronounced long. If the __ is replaced by double
    s, it is pronounced short (e.g. Masse [*]). The same for Ka__ebaum and
    Kassebaum. They are pronounced differently. But some older spellings

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
  (snip)

Thanks for the explanation. I'll have to get out my Duden. I took German
  long before I learned the principles of linguistics, so I'll have to
  rethink some of my long-held assumptions.
  One last question: if you are using, say an old American typewriter, and

Hello,
    Loren Szendre wrote:
    (snip)

you can substitute '__' with 'ss' in such cases.
    FWIW, the Swiss always do that:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9F#Switzerland_and_Liechtenstein

Loren Szendre wrote:
    (snip)

Once again, it is es-zet. And if you don't have an __, like the Swiss,
    you use ss, but it makes things a little harder to read. Words like
    Strasse would not be a problem, but words like Masse would. You'd have
    to get the meaning (and pronunciation) from the context.

Joe Demartino wrote:
    (snip)
Which version of RealBasic did you try? I still use Version 5.5 Pro
    edition and it works just fine for me. I have never tried the latest
    versions. I think there should be some way to show code in all
    procedures & functions in newer versions.

Markus Humm schrieb:
  (snip)

And this knowledge IMO is very helpful when coming from other (Roman)
  languages (Latin, Italian...).
  DoDi
  

Loren Szendre schrieb:
    (snip)

I've learned a couple of replacements for the "__" in German writing,
    like "sz" and "hs". These replacements look somewhat similar in older
    fonts, and their ligatures may be the root of the "__". The "sz" also may
    be a (wrong) decomposition of the old and phonetically closest "hs"

Rudy,
  (snip)

You are absolutely right. The "__" is simply wrong (Have you ever seen
  the work "Ka__e" in a supermarket?). I don't know the fool who began to
  write my name in this way. Unfortunately today it is official.
  --

Am 11.01.2010 21:12, Roman Kassebaum wrote:
  (snip)

Me too, actually ;D.
  --
  Regards
  Jens

Jens M__hlenhoff schrieb:
    (snip)

According to the latest argumentation (see "aufw__ndig"), it most
    probably will come as "Raechtschreibreform", because it derives from
    "Rache". The empire strikes back! ;-)
    DoDi

"Yogi Yang" <✉gmail.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

The current one. I really like the concept, but limiting the editor to one
  function at a time is downright painful. How do you build classes like
  that? And no, there's practical way to edit entire code files. There's an

Allen,
  On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 19:08:07 -0000, Allen Bauer
  <✉spicedham.codegear.com> wrote:
  (snip)

ISTR a couple of years ago - when you were still Borland/DevCo/CodeGear -
  we were constantly told that everyone in the company wished they could say

Paul Scott wrote:
    (snip)

Indeed, for now the roadmap has lead us to buying the cheapest 2010
    without SA. SA is a waste of money as we estimated there ain't going to
    be a 64bit release before sept 2010.
    Right now the only thing glueing us to delphi is our large delphi

(snip)

(gee, and I thought that previous experience with Kylix and Delphi.NET at least had corrected the unrealistic expectations that everything should run, always, with only a push on the button)
    
    
    
    

Paul Scott wrote:
    (snip)

My point is that there is a balance that has to be maintained.
    Sometimes we get it right, but many times we err on the side of
    caution. You cannot "unrelease" a roadmap that gives away information
    that stalls current sales.

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

All that you've said is well and good, and I'm happy to hear all of it
  (even those parts I may not agree with). HOWEVER, there are times that
  you may want to consider 'hindering' current sales, if you can make the
  case that it will enhance future sales. A blip of a couple of months on

Working for a recent startup company which created a product and then 6
  months
  on told customers about it's big brother which hadn't quite been finished
  and
  almost died when sales dried up due to people waiting for the big brother, I

David Erbas-White wrote:
    (snip)

Tell that to the investors who are expecting that we reach a certain
    level of earnings. Or how about all the bank convenants that suddenly
    become very onerous if we don't quite make the agreed upon earnings
    level?

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

That's a huge one, point taken...
  (snip)

I'm more looking at the situation that missing a quarterly target to
  enhance an annual target may be the 'prudent' move. I'm not suggesting
  making anything riskier, just to change the perspective slightly.

David Erbas-White wrote:
    (snip)

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush (in Dutch, we even say 10
    in the bush).
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

David Erbas-White wrote:
    (snip)

*If*, and this is a *big if*, we felt it was a 'prudent' move *and*
    could prove with reasonable certainty that the end result would be
    better for all involved, we could present this case directly to the
    investors and banks. The problem is reasonably assuring them of greater

"David Erbas-White" <✉arachneering.com> wrote in message
    (snip)

Plus, that makes the assumption that giving info out harms sales in the
    first place. They havent sold that to me yet. One could equally speculate
    that by being overly secretive, they're driving sales away because
    developers will want a sense of security about the future of the dev tool

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

Ever heard that car sales slow down a lot and people must be enticed to
  buy a car by reducing prices when a new model is announced? This is a
  similar situation.
  --

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

I've heard that the major cause of sales slowdowns for GM was that they
    decided not to produce a 64-bit automobile, thus forcing sales to Toyota...
    David Erbas-White
    

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

It's part of the overall product line, so it *does* affect it.
  (snip)

Again, we have to balance out the needs of customers, the evoloving
  marketplace, the shifting technologies, and our overriding need to keep
  the lights on and continue producing product. We can only plan ahead by

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

OMG!! It's the dreaded "software is the same as a car" analogy! Yep,
    sometimes it works (but let's not tell Nick, ok? ;-).
    --
    Allen Bauer

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" <✉rvelthuis.de> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

Ever hear of Microsoft giving out its beta of Windows 7 to anyone who wanted
    it for a *year* prior to release, so that the positive buzz it generated
    would help sales?

"Allen Bauer" <✉spicedham.codegear.com> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

The trouble with that is I cant recall Borland/CodeGear/Embar ever taking
    the 'open' approach. Someone already pointed out that before this line of
    thinking ('we cant tell you or it will risk sales'), we got the 'we cant

David Erbas-White wrote:
  (snip)

That's got to be 10 out of 10!
  Mattias
  
  

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

We've *never* played "fast and loose" with the whole kimono, however
  I've seen plenty of times where a little more "peek" here and there did
  have an effect.
  (snip)

I cannot disagree with you. That is why we're working on some

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

It' /never/ works. Hodges Law (much like Godwin's law) states that
  anyone who invokes an analogy about cars relating to the software
  business automatically loses the argument.
  --

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

We are a completely, totally different business than Microsoft.
  --
  Nick Hodges
  Delphi Development Manager

Allen Bauer wrote:
    (snip)

This is utterly, definitely, completely true.
    --
    Nick Hodges
    Delphi Development Manager

"Nick Hodges" <✉codegear.com> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

As are car manufacturers - I was just countering Rudy's point with a counter
    example.
    

David Erbas-White wrote:
  (snip)

Yeah, right.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

I'm so terribly sorry.
  (snip)
  mouth>
  --

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

Yes, because Vista sales were already on a low level, and they can
  bundle their software with hardware, which is not something others can
  do.
  --

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

I can. They have opened up considerably already. In the old days, you
  did not see discussions like this one, with people from Borland
  discussing their motives, at all.
  That they opened up does not mean they should disclose everything YOU

"Allen Bauer" <✉spicedham.codegear.com> wrote in message
    (snip)

Good to hear!
    
    
    

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

When it shipped. The sensible advice to anyone thinking of buying a
  computer through normal retail outlets during mid-2009 was to hold off
  for Windows 7 unless desperate.
  --

Joe Demartino wrote:
  (snip)

But the car sales example was an analogy that comes pretty close to
  what Allen meant and what actually happens and has happened already,
  while MS's bundling of Windows with computers doesn't come close to the
  situation of Embarcadero at all.

Tony Bryer wrote:
    (snip)

Indeed.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
    "You exist only in what you do."

Nick Hodges wrote:
  (snip)
....and I should add that I was very skeptical of this before I joined
  the company. But reality is a tough thing to ignore. ;-)
  --
  Nick Hodges

Allen Bauer wrote:
    (snip)

I think the cross-platform paradigm is one of them, and that's A Good
    Thing (tm). However, it would appear that it comes at the expense of
    the needs of the existing customers, and that's A Bad Thing (trademark
    available).

wrote in message news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

Thanks,
    I'm a bit late replying to this :)
    Yes that is based on ExtJS and uses ExtPascal as gateway between Delphi and
    ExtJS. ExtPascal performs great in this manner. Rest of it is my uniGUI

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
  (snip)

  bush^H^H^H^H air
  
  Carry on, nothing to see here ;-)

David Erbas-White wrote:
  (snip)

LOL! So *when* then should we embark on a "obtain new customers"
  strategy? Only after we've "satified" the needs of all our existing
  customers? Exactly *when* would that be? I hope you can see that not
  matter which direction we go, we're going to be derided for "doing the

"Joe Demartino" <✉thanks.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

Rather simple to demonstrate really. You're thinking of buying Widget v10
  right now. Unknown to you *yet* is that the next version will have feature-X
  which you are really going to want. So in 4 months Widget v11 is released

"Joe Demartino" <✉thanks.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

While that did concern publication of roadmaps, it was otherwise a totally
  different issue and, until it was figured out, stopped them from publishing
  a roadmap *period* since doing so, under SOX, could have required them to

Wayne Niddery wrote:
    (snip)

This cannot be emphasised more. SA, was, IMO, marketed as more of a
    "gimmick" rather than for its true intent. "Buy Delphi with SA, and you
    get the next version for free!" The problem was that it was not (and is
    not) really set up that way. The intent is that once you "jump on the

Wayne Niddery wrote:
    (snip)

SOX has had a profound affect on all corporate accounting (public *and*
    private). The primary one being that you cannot book revenue for a
    product until it is delivered *in full* to the customer. As soon as you
    release an update with a new "feature" then that triggers accounting

Allen Bauer wrote:
  Sorry, I have to call BS on this one...
  This 'problem' only existed for a year once the accounting method
  changed. As a programmer, you should easily be able to figure out the
  paradigm.

David Erbas-White wrote:
    (snip)

If, and only if you can survive that year with markedly lower revenue.
    Also, it assumes that there are enough customers jump on that bandwagon.
    (snip)

Correct. However it is the *transition* to that model that is what is
    costly. As I stated in other posts, we cannot simply tell the creditors

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

That year interval has long since come and gone. You folks are NOW (and
  obviously for quite some time previously) living off of 1/12th of new
  revenues, 1/12th of last month's revenue, etc., so you've obviously
  successfully made that transition. There are no new transition costs.

David Erbas-White wrote:
    (snip)

I'm not sure where you got this information but that is not true at
    all. We don't amortize license revenue. A license sale is booked at the
    time of delivery. Only the SA portion of a sale (if it is so included)
    is spread out over the next 12 months. I assure you that our SA to new

"David Erbas-White" <✉arachneering.com> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

AFAIK what you state here is correct *as far as it goes*. But that is not
    the only disruption caused by SOX. The issue is, as I undertsand it,
    "forward-looking statements" - which is what a roadmap is. Under SOX it was

Allen,
  I just want to say "thanks" for the non-trivial reply posts that you
  have been making the past few days. They do help for some of us to
  understand where the "new" Embarcadero division is "coming from."
  --

David Erbas-White wrote:
    (snip)

David --
    SOrry, but you are wrong. License revenue, the large majority of
    Delphi revenue, is not amortized.
    --

Nick,
  (snip)

Sorry for asking again. As a non-native speaker I do understand that you
  are not earning money with Delphi. Is this correct?
  --
  Roman

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

No, that is not correct. Delphi IS making money. What he stated was
    that when they are paid for a Delphi license, the take all of that money
    as 'income' at the time that the sale was made, they don't take (for
    example) a portion of it each month over a period of time (as an

In article <✉forums.codegear.com>, Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

What he means is that if today you spend $500 on a Delphi upgrade,
    $500 appears in the January profit & loss - it's a product sale. If
    you spend $600 on SA - it's a payment for a service so $50 appears
    this month, then $50 per month for the next 11 months. At the end

Tony,
  (snip)

I'm already confused. That's why I have some questions:
  1. Why is there a bank of investors? In the German news Embarcadero has
  been advertised as a normal software company. Is Embarcadero a bank of
  investors or is there someone else who invested a lot of money?

David,
  (snip)
These are very good news.
  (snip)

If I understood Tony correctly the opposite happens cause of SA.
  (snip)

What is the "advent of 'SOX legislation'"?
  (snip)

What can a "an amortized accounting method" be?

Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
    (snip)

I know, but the English saying uses "in the bush", and I only wanted to
    modify the number, not the rest. We actually say "in the air", yes.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
  (snip)

And in Sweden the 10 birds are "in the wood" (hard to find a place without
  nearby woods in most of Sweden).
  --
  Anders Isaksson, Sweden

Anders Isaksson wrote:
    (snip)

And in Germany, it is "better the sparrow in the hand than the pigeon
    on the roof". At the same time, most Germans consider pigeons no better
    than flying rats, these days.
    --

"Roman Kassebaum" <✉nospamremoveitkassebaum.eu> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

Correct, because SA is similar to a subscription, revenue from it is
    recognized in equal anounts for the length of the subscription (1 year)
    instead of all at time of sale.

Wayne,
  (snip)

I see. Thank you very much for your explanation.
  Now, I found a (German) wiki article about this legislation.
  --
  Roman

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

Don't get me started...
  --
  Regards,
  Bruce McGee

Allen Bauer wrote:
    (snip)

I hope this includes a concerted (and consistent) effort to target
    students.
    --
    Regards,

David Erbas-White wrote:
  (snip)

Yes, it is.
  (snip)

Not this one. I want cross platform.
  (snip)

Yes, they have a lot to live down, but things have gotten much better
  since CodeGear and then Embarcadero have been calling the shots.

Wayne Niddery wrote:
  (snip)

To be clear, it is actually my understanding that the accounting
  "rules" about requiring the amortization of "subscriptions" or
  "incomplete product delivery" have been in place for many, many years
  prior to the SOX legislation. What SOX did, among other things, was to

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

Thoma-Cressy-Bravo is a private equity firm that purchased Embarcadero,
    which was a public company, several years ago and took it private. TCB
    (http://www.tcb.com/) and Embarcadero then went looking for another
    company to "blend" into the the portfolio with EMBT. That was about the

Am 18.01.2010 23:40, schrieb Nick Hodges:
    (snip)

Hm, but you didn't prove this to be right this time. So the law is shown
    to be invalid?! ;-)
    Greetings
    Markus

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

FWIW, just this (OK, a little old, but it explains):
  <<
  Microsoft cuts Visual Studio 2008 upgrade prices as VS 2010 looms
  (snip)
http://searchwindevelopment.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid8_gci1347126,00.html

Hello,
  C++ builder can use and compile Delphi code but Delphi can't use C++ code.
  Greetings
  Markus
  

"Markus Humm" <✉freenet.de> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

Sorry, couldn't understand what it has to do with my post. Can you elaborate
    it a bit?
    

(snip)

LOLing @ existing customers doesn't seem like a sound plan, though.
    Cool new young kids don't even know about Delphi, you know...
    LP,
    Dejan
    

Dejan Stanic wrote:
  (snip)

Oh my, are we sensitive.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "There are, it has been said, two types of people in the world.

Allen,
  (snip)

Thank you very much for your explanation and your clear words.
  I'm really surprised that you are allowed to give us so many details.
  Thank you again.
  --

Allen,
  On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:37:29 -0000, Allen Bauer
  <✉spicedham.codegear.com> wrote:
  (snip)

.... and my life would be so much easier if Michael were to do the work for
  which I am paid.

Hello,
  sorry. My Thunderbird had messed up something.
  Greetings
  Markus
  

Paul Scott wrote:
    (snip)

That's blatant nonsense. Micheal Rozlog didn't say something like that,
    but I did. And I said that about people who try to tell Embarcadero how
    to run their business.
    That is, however, not nearly the same as stating what YOU (and/or YOUR

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
  (snip)

I can say with great assurance that between these two arguments:
  "You guy should do because people will buy crazy tons of
  Delphi!"
  and

Nick Hodges wrote:
    (snip)

That is what I meant, indeed.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
    "The concept is interesting and well-formed, but in order to

Nick Hodges wrote:
    (snip)

I'm not sure what the relation is with what you quoted.
    (snip)

Maybe you copied the above sentence from an internal management report,
    I dunno Anyway AFAIK no one said something like that in this
    group. AFAICT the trend in this group is more about, you may lose

Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
  (snip)

People say things like that in this group ////all the time////.
  --
  Nick Hodges
  Delphi Development Manager

On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:15:41 -0000, Rudy Velthuis
  <✉rvelthuis.de> wrote:
  (snip)

Rudy,
  I know that since you are contractually obliged to reply to each and every
  single message in these forums, you don't have much time left over to

Paul Scott wrote:
    (snip)

What *would* make you think that we're open to suggestions? Remember,
    listening and considering input, is *not* equal to agreeing with or
    acting on said input. We *do* want you to feel like your voice is
    heard. While we do make product decisions unilaterally (it's not a

Paul Scott wrote:
    (snip)

Funny.
    (snip)
No, but you implied that you would get something like that back, from
    him or from someone else from Embarcadero.
    (snip)

Thee is not a lot of evidence that they aren't either. Unless you know

Nick Hodges wrote:
    (snip)

Yes. I call that "telling Embarcadero how they should run their
    business". That is not the same as telling Embarcadero what you are
    missing or would like to have in their products to run your own
    business. I find the latter valid information, and I'm sure Embarcadero

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

Yes, I understand but the problem is we really need 64-bit compiler
  now. ;o)
  I am quite sure that you already know perfectly well the majority of
  scenarios where 64-bit compiler is a necessity as far as a strictly

Zenon Jordan wrote:
    (snip)

There's always that one guy in the crowd ;-)...
    (snip)

We're certainly working on the 64bit compiler since I regularly see
    checkins like this at least once or more a week:
    ====

Allen,
  (snip)

So, you are implementing the compiler with C, aren't you? Shame on you! :-)
  Why don't you use the best language in the world? ;-)
  (snip)

I have the impression that you do not have enough staff. Why don't you
  hire one or two developers? Here are a lot of people hanging around who

Hello,
    Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)
I guess Haskell hasn't been available back then.
    --
    Moritz

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

Probably because it would be a complete rewrite, with all the dangers
    that harbours.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

It's been in C since Delphi 2. Prior to that it was all in assembler.
    (snip)
That is the proverbial bootstrapping problem.
    (snip)

If only it were actually simple. How, exactly, do you propose these new
    folks get paid ;-)?

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

Well at least don't charge them if they want to receive the next
  official version (*).
  (*) Sorry some bad experience from the past about a serial
  communication suite, which had a nasty bug costing us a lot of time of

Pieter Zijlstra wrote:
    (snip)

I am sorry, but I can't see how your bad experiences are relevant in
    the context of Allen's post?
    Regards,
    Zenon

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

I have found the pictures of the Delphi team
  http://wings-of-wind.com/2009/08/25/rad-studio-2010-released/
  looks like there are indeed not too many people there especially for a
  big product like RAD Studio is.

Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

There aren't a lot of good lexers and compiler generators available in
    Object Pascal unfortunately**. One notable exception was DCG by Mike
    Lischke, but it was also quite bug-ridden. My own implementation, which is
    based partially on DCG, works perfectly however and it allows you to

Allen,
  (snip)

AFAIK, you are implementing a new compiler from the stretch. This means
  you are able to change the language.
  (snip)

Are you sure cause there is already an existing Delphi compiler?
  Although this compiler only produces 32-bit code and is written in C, it

Mattias,
  (snip)

I hope that Allen will read about this.
  --
  Roman
  

Hello,
    Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

how would you port that to another platform (e.g. Linux in the Kylix
    days)?
    Also, I'm not so sure whether Delphi is the right language for a

Hello,
  Mattias Andersson wrote:
  (snip)

DCC features a hand-written lexer and parser and does not rely on a
  generator. Read Barry's comments here:
  http://stackoverflow.com/questions/199627/converting-c-source-to-c/201922#201922

Moritz,
  (snip)

First I would write the compiler and compile it with Delphi32. I can't
  sea a reason why Delphi32 shouldn't be able to produce a 64-bit compiler
  for Linux.
  (snip)

I'm not an expert in producing compilers. I suppose that the guys from

(snip)

Interesting. I wonder what parts of the grammar are not LALR(1) or a LR(1)
    compatible though. I can understand the argument that using a hand-written
    compiler will allow you to more easily extend the language, since it avoids
    the problem of maintaining consistent shift/reduce tables. In my own
    implementation, the non-terminals of the AST are represented as separate

Mattias Andersson schrieb:
  (snip)

CoCo/R exists since many years, and I created an OO version of it. While
  C has one LL[2] part in its grammar, C++ may require more lookahead. But
  this should not be a really limiting factor, most production LL parsers
  are handcrafted, maybe based on a skeleton made by an compiler generator.

Hello,
    Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
    (snip)
infinite lookahead, AFAIK.
    --
    Moritz

Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
    (snip)

That's very cool. On the other hand, C can be perfectly parsed with an LR(1)
    parser. I think I did implement an LL parser too, but compared to
    implementing an LR parser, that was quite a bit less painful.
    I found the following page that I think partially answered my question

Mattias Andersson wrote:
  (snip)

Actually it does not produce a GLR parser and I think a GLR parser has some
  disadvantages in terms of performance. However, it should be possible to
  resolve conflicts in a way similar to what a GLR parser does.
  Mattias

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

Really? I rather guess back in 199x it has been a strategic decision
  (in order to reuse parts for C++) or just due historical reasons
  (because there were already C++ compilers for Win32 and the compiler
  could be native from start).

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

First cross compilation and when the RTL is done then you can build the
  native compiler. Right?
  (snip)

With my little knowledge I don't see a reason why a Delphi compiler
  written in Delphi would be slower or why it would take longer to add

Hello,
    Uwe Schuster wrote:
    (snip)

using GCC to build a Linux version of your sources sure beats that.
    (snip)

I just don't see how a compiler would benefit from Delphi's
    higher-level features. This is different in C++.

Uwe,
    (snip)

+1
    --
    Roman
    

Hello,
    Uwe Schuster wrote:
    (snip)

just like Office being written in native C++ is an argument related to
    ..NET?
    --

Moritz,
  (snip)

I still think that Delphi is the best language. I made the experience
  that it is easier to write something with Delphi than with C.
  Why shouldn't the implementation of a compiler shouldn't be easier with
  Delphi?

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

I don't think that this comparison does work here and BTW, doesn't use
  VStudio 2010 WPF, which is .NET, and VS2010 has been delayed, because
  of the slowness of WPF?
  You know that people often use arguments, which aren't arguments, but

Moritz Beutel   (snip)

Infinite lookahead is not a solution for ambiguous grammars. IMO it's
  perfectly valid if a compiler asks the user to disambiguate the source
  code himself, instead of guessing what could have been meant.
  DoDi

Mattias Andersson wrote:
  (snip)

I assume they would write their own. That's their business, isn't it?
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "The corporation is a true Frankenstein's monster, an

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

Honestly Rudy, I've not expressed an opinion along these lines at all. I did
    read some of the comments made by Barry Kelly and I think that was really a
    bit of en eye-opener for me. I didn't fully comprehend the nature of
    commercial compiler development earlier. At the same time, I'm curious about

Mattias Andersson wrote:
  (snip)

I don't follow, sorry. They do write compilers, don't they? That makes
  me think they are not dependent on existing compiler generators.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" <✉rvelthuis.de> wrote in message
    news:✉forums.codegear.com...
    (snip)

I think the question was why doesn't Embarcadero write the new 64-bit
    compiler and/or cross-compiler in Delphi.
    My guesses would be 1) because a lot of the existing C code of the 32-bit

David Harper wrote:
  (snip)

Yes, indeed. I said the fact they couldn't find a useful compiler
  generator can't be the reason.
  (snip)

My guess is that they don't want to rewrite the compiler. The original
  TP/Delphi 1 compiler was written in assembler, and rewritten in C for

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

Well, a lot of compilers are dependent on existing compiler generators -- I
    don't know why you would think otherwise.
    Mattias
    

Hello,
    Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

mind you, I often find things easier to implement in C or C++. The
    cause might be that I'm used to C++, and you are used to Delphi. I can
    write software in Delphi, in Java or even in BASIC if I need to, and I

Hello,
    Uwe Schuster wrote:
    (snip)
.... because?
    Every rewrite costs a lot of time and causes an endless plethora of new
    bugs and incompatibilities. Rewriting a large and important piece of

Moritz,
  (snip)

I also have to work with different languages, C++, C#, Visual Basic,
  Delphi and Prism. Most of the time for me it is easier to work with Delphi.
  (snip)

You shouldn't take this statement as a serious conclusion. I justed
  wanted to make some kind of advertisement for Delphi. :)

Zenon Jordan wrote:
  (snip)

I was aiming at the "how ... folks get paid" part from Allen's post.
  I'm aware that the "bad experience" I described happened a long time
  ago in a totally different world and amounts of work/money involved.
  What I was thinking about is that there might be some developers here

Mattias Andersson wrote:
  (snip)

So what? They already have a compiler. Converting that to Delphi should
  not require the generation of a new one by a compiler generator.
  Which compilers are actually dependent on existing compiler generators?
  --

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

I was not making any claims about "converting to Delphi". I was simply
    responding to your assertion that there is no dependency between the
    compiler and the compiler generator.
    (snip)

If you want to change the grammar of the language then this requires you to

Hello,
    Roman Kassebaum wrote:
    (snip)

ah, I see. My understanding was that Embarcadero wasn't planning for a
    total rewrite but rather an evolution. Looking at all the time and
    effort that is put into the new OS X and x64 backend, one could hardly

Mattias Andersson wrote:
  (snip)

I never claimed anything like that. I merely said they didn't need any,
  since they already have a functioning compiler.
  (snip)

I know what a compiler generator does.
  I meant: give me examples of existing, widely used compilers that were

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

Of course you do. It's the one that produce the chassis, before they are
    mounted.
    (snip)

If you would have read any literature on "compiler construction", you would
    have learned how to use a compiler generator and most probably not how to

Mattias Andersson wrote:
  (snip)

Not what I asked. Anyway, I only read the Dragon Book.
  (snip)

My guess would be that the mainstream ones, like C, C++, C#, Java,
  Pascal, Python, Ruby, Perl, etc. are not. I could be wrong, though.
  --

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

OK, I was wrong about Perl and Ruby. Apparently, these use Yacc or
    something very similar. Python doesn't use one, AFAICT. Pascal, C and
    C++ certainly don't.
    I know that the Free Pascal Compiler parser started out as a TP YACC

Most likely, the guys writing the compiler write *all* the compilers and
    know 'C'/C++
    To write the Delphi compiler in another language that they might not be 100%
    in
    would make for a worse compiler.

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
  (snip)

IMO, YACC does not provide the most optimal flexibility when building a
  compiler. I can certainly understand why you would want to look at other
  solutions.
  Mattias

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) schrieb:
    (snip)

You are writing applications, aren't you? Then it's your choice whether
    to do that all alone, or using an existing development system and
    related tools (form designers...).
    Parser generators create code from a given grammar, while handwritten

(snip)
[/quote]
  Strange remark, specially since C and C++ are further apart than e.g. C++ and Delphi.
  I don't see why C++ would be anywhere more fit for a compiler than Delphi. And Free Pascal
  proves a multiarchitecture compiler based on the delphi dialect is no problem
  

Hello,
    Marco van de Voort wrote:
    (snip)

Well, in C++ you can always ignore the whole half-baked class model and
    use templates to replace your type-unsafe C macros. Not so in Delphi
    --

"Mattias Andersson" <✉centaurix.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

Hi Mattias,
  Slightly off topic here, but would you be willing to share your
  DCG-based compiler generator now?

Paul Nicholls wrote:
    (snip)

Let me try to evaluate the state of the project. There are some parts that I
    want to rewrite (particularly the lexer isn't very pretty). On the other
    hand, there is a risk that the project is delayed indefinitely.
    I'll send a private e-mail tomorrow.

"Mattias Andersson" <✉centaurix.com> wrote in message
  news:✉forums.codegear.com...
  (snip)

Thanks for your time, Mattias :)
  cheers,
  Paul

Marco van de Voort wrote:
    (snip)

Syntactically, they certainly aren't. And C++ is a superset of C, so I
    see nothing strange about his remark.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

Delphi can also ignore its class model. It does not have macros, so
  they don't have to be replaced.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

Based on what? Of course Delphi is just as suitable for creating a compiler
  as C, or probably more so.
  But why should Embarcadero port C code that works (probably on more than one
  platform) to a new implementation in Delphi (which still only exists on one

Hello,
    Anders Isaksson wrote:
    (snip)

the question is more like C++ vs. Delphi, not C vs. Delphi. The only
    compiler I've ever worked on was mostly written in C, and I remember
    that I saw various opportunities to simplify its structure using C++

Hello,
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)
I must have forgotten about that. :)
    (snip)
The compiler likely has lots of them - it's written in C. Translating
    them to Delphi should be fun. Or not :)

Anders Isaksson wrote:
    (snip)

We might do that if we were, say, redesigning the front end.....
    --
    Nick Hodges
    Delphi Development Manager

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

Translating macros is not so hard. If they are simple #defines, they
  can be replaced by constants. If they are macros, they can often be
  replaced by inline functions. Some of them, that define structures
  (like DEFINE_GUID ofr whatever it is called) can be done with keyboard

Anders Isaksson wrote:
    (snip)

Fully agreed.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
    "Sometimes a scream is better than a thesis."

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

Define what you mean with "Delphiisms".
  FWIW, it is very well possible and not unreasonable at all to write
  compilers in Delphi. If I had to write one, I would use Delphi, since
  it is the language I know best and I can express almost anything with

Hello,
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)
obviously you haven't seen my macro collection :)
    --
    Moritz

Hello,
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)
all the things that set Delphi apart of C (many of which are now shared
    by e.g. C#), e.g. subclassing polymorphism (for both classes and
    objects), anonymous methods and other kinds of syntactical sugar.

Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>> wrote:
  (snip)

Why you might want to use anonymous methods: if you want to delay
  evaluation of some kind, such as symbol table lookup, but not have to
  write some elaborate fixup or callback mechanism (and possibly need to
  worry about arguments). A simple list of closure references can work

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

No, I haven't. Macros are evil, evil, evil.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "So I went to the dentist. He said "Say Aaah." I said "Why?"

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

Perhaps.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "A sense of humor is part of the art of leadership, of getting

Hello,
    Barry Kelly wrote:
    (snip)

it might be different in your case, but for the compiler I was working
    on, the fixups were pretty straightforward (one additional pass after
    compilation which simply swapped a few values), and using closures for

Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>> wrote:
  (snip)

Not for actual executable or object file fixups, no (tables have to be
  produced for those anyway), but things can get complicated if you're
  e.g. trying to parse generics in a single pass, where e.g. a method of a
  generic type may return an inner type of the type being compiled -

Rudy,
    | Macros are evil, evil, evil.
    Something else on which we agree!
    --
    Q

Hello All,
  If you want to develop cross-platform software in Delphi. You can do this today using our VGScene library. One code compiled in Delphi and Lazarus and work in Windows, Linux and Mac OS X.
  VGScene home - www.ksdev.com
  Software was made - www.binerus.com
  VGScene speeds the development of all graphical application, providing: a graphical editor integrated in IDE, graphical objects, simplify animation, advanced windows and controls, maximum performance, skinning engine, bitmap effects. VGScene can be used as development tools for SCADA, GIS, CAD and KIOSK applications.

Hello Barry,
    first, thanks for taking the time to explain things at length. As
    usually I'm learning a lot from reading your posts.
    Barry Kelly wrote:
    (snip)

FWIW, I don't like this either, but in fact this is how many C++

Quentin Correll wrote:
  (snip)

Actually, macros that are used to define complete structures or similar
  actually make sense and even Delphi could benefit from them, especially
  if they could actually have typed parameters. And simple #defines of
  values are in fact like pure constants in Delphi.

On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 11:11:31 -0800, Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>>
  wrote:
  (snip)
that would be quite interesting to see those macros you use to work
  with bcb
  I personally have lots of one-liners such as

Hello,
    Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
    (snip)

that was a joke. I have written numerous macros which would easily
    resist being ported to Delphi, but I don't really use them in
    production code :)

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 06:12:34 -0800, Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>>
  wrote:
  (snip)

why not? I do it all the time
  (snip)
looks really interesting
  as I still use bcb2006 and don't know yet what that decltype staff is

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) laid this down on his screen :
    (snip)

I don't think you've tried to translate some
    of the headers that I have.
    The automatic converters help with the easy stuff.
    What remains quickly gets intractable.

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)

Oh, you can make this pretty hard, but that is what makes macros so
  evil.
  (snip)
I don't do automatic conversions. A few days ago, I tried a few of them
  again, and they don't cut it at all. I prefer to convert manually, but

Hello,
    Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
    (snip)

the small ones are all right, but I was rather thinking of a little
    framework which I built upon macros and templates and which basically
    emulated Delphi's "safecall" convention (i.e. COM exception

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

A simpler version was already possible using interfaces without
  generics.
  Alernatively, using anonymous methods (and generics) you can implement
  something like C#'s "using()" construct.

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:20:00 -0800, Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>>
  wrote:
  (snip)

you mean something similar to IErrorInfo support implemented in ATL
  headers?
  (snip)

template

On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 11:40:46 -0800, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
    <✉rvelthuis.de> wrote:
    (snip)

will you please show your alternatives?
    --
    Vladimir Ulchenko aka vavan

Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

The simpler version was integrated in the JCL (not sure how they call
  the classes now, I called them guard interfaces).
  I'll try to find an example of the Using() procedure.
  --

Hello,
    Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
    (snip)

don't know about that. Does ATL provide more than AtlSetErrorInfo()?
    (snip)

I find them very appealing. The new RTTI and the support for custom
    attributes allows for things which were only possible with .NET or Java

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 05:10:05 -0800, Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>>
  wrote:
  (snip)
I guess you better look out ATL headers provided with bcb, I'm not
  sure what exactly you're looking for
  (snip)
I only meant the syntax :)

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:47:55 -0800, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
    <✉rvelthuis.de> wrote:
    (snip)

I wonder how delphi counterpart to one of my one-liners (say
    BEGIN_END_UPDATE) could be implemented using JCL ISafeGuard? in
    addition I'd like to avoid declaring any guard variables manually (one

Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

Allen Bauer did it here:
  http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer/2008/09/25/38870
  --
  Nick Hodges

Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

I guess one could use a function taking an anonymous method that
  performed the body, and which surrounded the body with BeginUpdate and
  EndUpdate.
  My guards were more meant to free objects when they leave scope. Some

Nick Hodges wrote:
    (snip)

Ah, thanks! I knew I had seen an implementation, but didn't remember
    where.
    --
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:42:18 -0800, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
    <✉rvelthuis.de> wrote:
    (snip)

I have no experience whatsoever with anonymous delphi methods and have
    no rs2010 handy at the moment to try. please show actual code meeting
    all my aforementioned requirements if possible. I also looked at

Am 29.01.2010 08:24, Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

In the simplest case it'd look something like this:
  DisableEnableControls(SomeDataSet, procedure
  begin
  // Your code here

Hello,
  Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

the only way to have that statement as an one-liner, I believe, is by
  manually adjusting stack pointer and exception frame. I don't see how
  this could be achieved in plain Delphi.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:02:04 -0800, Jens M?hlenhoff
    <✉accurata.com> wrote:
    (snip)

perhaps that code will look even more ugly than original nested
    try/finally's when one needs to acquire/release several resources
    if it's really minimal possible code to get needed functionality then

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 05:28:26 -0800, Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>>
    wrote:
    (snip)

that was my impression as well. even in modern delphi versions it is
    still impossible to make some useful things I accustomed to use in cpp
    though it really looks like it borrowed several useful concepts from

Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

FWIW, I had to read earlier in the thread to see what the expansion was
  supposed to be in order to understand what was meant:
  (snip)

But on the other hand, it is easy enough to do in Delphi, after the
  definition of some utilities. The only "gotcha" is that Delphi scopes

Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

That is not necessarily true. It is just done differently. See my reply
  to Moritz.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

Hello,
    Barry Kelly wrote:
    (snip)

wow - discarded ref-counted return values are actually kept alive until
    end of scope? That's INCREDIBLY useful :)
    --

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

Well, apparently it is.
  The smallest scope in Delphi is the routine. Any interface created will
  not be released until the end of that scope is reached. To make this
  happen, "discarded" return values are assigned to hidden (or anonymous,

Hello,
    Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
    (snip)

yes, I've read Barry's blog as well, thanks.
    --
    Moritz

Hello,
  (snip)

damn - I forgot to call FExitProc :)
  Of course this call complicates the situation a bit:
  // -----
  uses

(snip)

(C++ afaik?)
  (snip)

That's a legacy argument, and something else then the delphi
  language not being fit to write a compiler.
  And there all kinds of strange legacies in Delphi (and compatibles) land,
  like Virtual Pascal, a D2 level compiler that is entirely in assembler.

On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:02:39 -0800, Barry Kelly
    <✉nospam.codegear.com> wrote:
    (snip)

thank you, that was the closest approach to what I was looking for.
    that's fine for specific types of guards and I definitely will use
    that interface-based way. moreover I just discovered that I already

Hello,
  Vladimir Ulchenko wrote:
  (snip)

using Barry's code, that should be as simple as
  // -----
  begin

On Sat, 30 Jan 2010 14:21:08 -0800, Moritz Beutel <"Moritz Beutel" <>>
    wrote:
    (snip)
not that bad. I think I'll start to use that technique in new delphi
    projects when (if) we port to rs2010. I'm used to RAII and glad that
    delphi allows me to set resource release guard as one-liner

Allen,
  Sorry about the delay in replying to your question, I've been away and
  when I got back there are so many posts to skim - and then I found this
  (and several other) bons mots had not actually been delivered but had
  somehow got stuck in my Outbox.

Paul Scott wrote:
    (snip)

I'm in complete agreement here that there is no point in blaming
    previous management. But I don't think that happens much if at all.
    None of us really talks or thinks about Borland much anymore. We
    certainly recognize that the past is past and that it is time to move

On 2/15/2010 9:42 AM, Nick Hodges wrote:
  (snip)

I'm sure "W" is happy to hear that...
  David Erbas-White
  
  

Paul Scott formulated the question :
    (snip)

Nick,
    Any comment on this request?
    Two years, or two versions, seems like
    a minimum to me.

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)
Check with the support guys -- I don't know what the policy is.
  --
  Nick Hodges
  Delphi Development Manager

Paul Scott wrote:
    (snip)

We are all too painfully aware of this very thing. Its isn't going to
    happen overnight, and we have a lot to prove. All we can do is continue
    to try to make the best decisions we can.
    (snip)

As to the size of the company, I can certainly have my own opinions on

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

When I compare the situation today with the situation three years ago I
  think it got much better when speaking about the "Reported" reports and
  the reports that got opened or otherwise handled. Takahashi-san is
  doing a good job and most of the reports get opened very fast.

Uwe Schuster wrote:
    (snip)

Thanks, Uwe. You're contribution does not go unnoticed within the walls
    here. You, and several others are frequently referred to by name... in
    a good way ;-).
    --

Allen Bauer wrote:
  (snip)

One of your main challenges. But I think that you should be a little bit
  more innovative in the Delphi area. 3rd Raid was a good, innovative
  product (hmmm... why I'm speaking at past tense?) but it seems that in
  the Delphi's land the thing are somewhat 'usual'.

m. Th. formulated on Thursday :
    (snip)
What in the world for??
    Whether you mean the VB or the C# incarnation,
    Delphi already has that.
    IMHO, the C# 'using' was put in place to make

Allen Bauer explained :
  (snip)

That really threw me. 8: -)
  When I first read it, I thought you said
  'quickly' instead of 'publicly'
  Thanks for the laugh,

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)
You already can do "using" in delphi:
  http://blogs.embarcadero.com/abauer/2008/09/25/38870
  --
  Nick Hodges

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)

Such as? AFAICT, Delphi only has try-finally, which C# also has.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication."

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) submitted this idea :
    (snip)

The reason that we have to use 'using' in C#
    is to make finalization deterministic.
    Everything is guaranteed to be cleaned up when
    it leaves the scope.

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)

No. That's not right. The closest thing to Delphi's Free in C# is
  IDisposable. The following code samples are more or less equivalent:
  Delphi:
  foo = TFoo.Create;

After serious thinking Craig Stuntz wrote :
    (snip)

OK, so I didn't give a very good example.
    But it has to do with making sure that
    everything gets cleaned up deterministicly.
    From the source I quoted:

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)

Again, it's not really a good analogy, since you *must* clean up 95%
  of what you allocate in Delphi (exceptions being things like interfaces
  and ownership) and you don't need to do that for 95% of what you write
  in C# (exceptions being things like file handles and DB transactions).

Craig Stuntz wrote:
    (snip)
LOL!
    --
    Allen Bauer
    Embarcadero Chief Scientist

Hello,
    Craig Stuntz wrote:
    (snip)
.... and exceptions :)
    (SCNR.)
    --

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

Nice. :)
  --
  Craig Stuntz __ Vertex Systems Corp. __ Columbus, OH
  Delphi/InterBase Weblog : http://blogs.teamb.com/craigstuntz/

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

And sometimes for..in enumerators...
  --
  Allen Bauer
  Embarcadero Chief Scientist

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)

It is meant to get rid of all resources beside memory. In Delphi, you
  do the same, but you must also take care of memory using try-finally.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)

Indeed.
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever

Moritz Beutel wrote:
  (snip)

LOL!
  --
  Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) http://www.teamb.com
  "Man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

Nick Hodges wrote:
    (snip)

This was afraid of.
    And do you think that that is a natural, clear, lean-and-mean, compact,
    readable, maintainable Delphi/Pascal syntax?
    Even I know Allen's post since it was issued, and it is pretty

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)

Aside the relationship between Delphi and .NET resource protection
  structures (thing which was discussed already), there is another thing
  which wasn't touched: code readability, code quality.
  Mind you, can be many nested 'try' blocks and sometimes you must be

m. Th. wrote:
  (snip)

I wasn't making any claim as such -- just pointing out that Allen wrote
  some pretty cool code.
  --
  Nick Hodges

Nick Hodges wrote:
    (snip)

In this case we agree. :-)
    --
    m. Th.
    On the Wings of the Wind...

Craig Stuntz expressed precisely :
    (snip)

We must be talking about different things.
    Let's take this from the top.
    Here is the original point that we are responding to:
    (snip)

I think I've made my argument.

m. Th. explained on 2/19/2010 :
    (snip)
If I understand your point, 'using' would extend lifetime
    management to objects without interfaces, whereas interfaces
    could use it but wouldn't need it.
    And you think that would make the code more readable.

Brad White wrote:
  (snip)
I'm mostly trying to keep things technically accurate, which it hasn't
  been. It's hard to discuss the benefit of something when it is so
  thoroughly wrongly described.
  (snip)
That is wrong. Finalizers *will* get called, although they are very