Board index » delphi » Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)

Delphi Developer
 

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++


2003-12-15 07:14:43 PM
delphi48
Hrvoje Brozovic writes:
Quote
I am not satisfied with what NET as such can do,
so what Delphi for NET can do is not enough.
What is missing, according to you?
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Learning is what most {*word*62}s will do for a living in the 21st century."
-- Perelman
 
 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)

Delphi Developer

2003-12-15 08:04:09 PM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

Ender writes:
Quote
That's my point also. Original is problematic in usage. For example
almost all API
functions work with char* instead of std::string.
for reading, std::string has c_str(), and for buffers, you can use a
new char[some_size]
and std::string has a constructor which takes a char*. Not much different
than how you would use it in Delphi.
Quote
No, it is not scariest thing in conversion. I am just selected simple
example of resource and object state protection/management.
Exactly. Also called RAII, in C++ speak.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Glory is fleeting, but obscurity is forever."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
 
Nick Hodges (TeamB)

Delphi Developer

2003-12-15 11:34:57 PM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:56:56 +0100, "Hrvoje Brozovic" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
writes:
Quote

I am not satisfied with what NET as such can do,
so what Delphi for NET can do is not enough.
Okay.
Nick Hodges - TeamB
Lemanix Corporation
Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
www.borland.com/newsgroups
 

Nick Hodges (TeamB)

Delphi Developer

2003-12-15 11:35:46 PM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:05:18 +0100, Eric Grange <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
writes:
Quote
Read it, and maybe, after reading it thoroughly (not in diagonal),
the meaning may no longer be lost on you.
Ah, I see.
Well, I will leave that discussion alone.
Nick Hodges - TeamB
Lemanix Corporation
Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
www.borland.com/newsgroups
 
Nick Hodges (TeamB)

Delphi Developer

2003-12-15 11:46:59 PM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 10:05:18 +0100, Eric Grange <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>
writes:
Quote
Here is a MAJOR hint for you:
BTW, I appreciated your patronizing comments. Nicely done. ;-)
Nick Hodges - TeamB
Lemanix Corporation
Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
www.borland.com/newsgroups
 
Trevor de Koekkoek

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 12:04:08 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

Quote
>
 >I am not satisfied with what NET as such can do,
 >so what Delphi for NET can do is not enough.
I'm surprised at the resistance many Delphi people have to .NET. Personally
I find it the only thing that has re-energized my e{*word*277}ment for development
that I had when Delphi 1 first came out. I look forward to continue doing
Delphi in both Win32 and .NET as well as C#.
Cheers,
Trevor
 
Nick Hodges (TeamB)

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 12:14:29 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:04:08 -0500, "Trevor de Koekkoek"
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Personally
I find it the only thing that has re-energized my e{*word*277}ment for development
that I had when Delphi 1 first came out. I look forward to continue doing
Delphi in both Win32 and .NET as well as C#.
I agree. I think .Net is terrific, and am really enjoying learning it.
Nick Hodges - TeamB
Lemanix Corporation
Please always follow the newsgroup guidelines --
www.borland.com/newsgroups
 
dontusethis

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 12:42:18 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

Kevin, your posts dont wrap properly in Agent.
 
Eric Grange

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 12:48:51 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

Quote
BTW, I appreciated your patronizing comments. Nicely done. ;-)
I've been following a master's lead ;)
"Okay, you can smell smoke, but how that can lead
to suspecting a fire is lost on me" :p
Eric
 
William Meyer

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 01:44:52 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

On 15-Dec-03, Captain Jake said:
Quote
You are entirely correct, IMHO. But I think logic is not going to
accomplish much here.
Now if only *that* were a rare circumstance here <g>.
--
Bill
--------
"You can not keep on doing things the old way and still get the benefits
of the new way." -- Thomas Sowell
 
Mike Swaim

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 01:46:40 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

William Meyer writes:
Quote
Well, actually, we have been told repeatedly that the IDE for BCB does
make use of Delphi, so that statement is in error. (As well as being
one of the things that irritates the BCB users, I am afraid.)
Builder X uses Java for it is IDE.
 
Mike Swaim

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 02:05:28 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

Joanna Carter (TeamB) writes:
Quote
What is the point of completely rewriting the Delphi compiler to
target 64 bit as well as providing a platform independent route to 64
bit through .NET? Especially as the current AMD 64 bit may not be the
same 64 bit as will be supported by .NET.
It shouldn't require a complete rewrite. Look at how many CPUs gcc
supports.
Quote
If Microsoft don't provide the wherewithall to do 64 bit outside of
.NET, how are you going to get your Delphi 64 bit applications to run?
Microsoft *HAS* to provide a capability to do 64 bit outside of .net.
Anybody writing code that talks to the metal will have to generate native
code. I also suspect that a lot of games won't make the switch to .net.
 
William Meyer

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 02:29:15 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

On 15-Dec-03, Captain Jake said:
Quote
This is easily one of the most entertaining threads in a long time!
Bring the popcorn!
Ah, but would you buy software form these guys? (I'm assuming you value
deterministic behaviors over random <g>.)
--
Bill
--------
"You can not keep on doing things the old way and still get the benefits
of the new way." -- Thomas Sowell
 
Captain Jake

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 02:30:03 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

"Kevin Collins" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
But{*word*19}y managers do influence decisions.
Hell, some of them even create grossly impossible deadlines too.
 
Captain Jake

Delphi Developer

2003-12-16 02:35:41 AM

Re: Moving from Delphi to C++

"Kevin Collins" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote

>I don't have to prove that something +didn't+ happen. In fact, I
 >can't -- one cannot prove a negative. Of course, the burden of proof
 >is on the +affirmative+.
This discussion is over as far as I am concerned (as it was resolved to my
personal satisfaction with the explanations given) but I just had to point
out a serious flaw in your logic.
Quote

(Purely for the sake of logic.) And the following statements make no
assumption about what was contained in the letter, merely that it existed
and then didn't.
Quote

Because a specific instance was sighted, including physical evidence and
actions on Borland's part which unquestionably did happen, including the
publishing of the original letter, and the subsequent removal of that
letter. It then falls to the other party to prove that letter did not
contain what is claimed.
Quote

You can't prove that something never happened which would be attempting
to prove a negative. But you can prove that it didn't happen in a specific
circumstance by showing the lack of a positive in that instance. And in
fact, in this case the burden of proof would lie with you since you are the
one refuting the claim when specific evidence was sighted.
That is some of the most ridiculous logic I have ever seen posted in this
entire wacky thread. It shows a complete ineptitude at logical analysis and
the concept of the burden of proof, as well as the very definition of
evidence. You sited not one single piece of evidence for your claim, yet you
now claim that the burden of proof is one those who would disagree with your
(flawed) memory. Talk about a narcissistic argument!