Board index » delphi » Re: RAD Evolution Theory

2005-01-24 01:43:44 AM
delphi184
Jason Southwell writes:
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] rvelthuis.bei.t-online.de
"Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has not heart; and any
man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains."
- Sir Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
 

If you want to talk about evolution: it will grew faster
simply because it is less complex, meaning is capable
of performing of smaller number of functions.
It's like why yeast protein remains virtually unchanged
in one billion years, where the other kind of protein
evolved into plants and animals and Max.
Delphi is like that yeast; it will not change in a billion years.
"Max" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes news:41f2160e$XXXX@XXXXX.COM...

 

Peter Morris [Droopy eyes software] writes:
(pre BDS) delphi IDE. I mean, no delphi ide was perfect enough to be
replicated...
I do download recent builds and have a play though.
You would have to wonder how many of Borlands patents they are
infringing on as well. Perhaps none, perhaps many.
--
QC Client: www.alphalink.com.au/~jed/QC/
Blog: jedqc.blogspot.com/
Configure Delphi the way you want it to be:
www.alphalink.com.au/~jed/dcm.htm
Checkout my code central submissions for D2005
cc.borland.com/ccweb.exe/author
 

their own technology by adding applications to the operating system.
Those applications may be closed or open source. It can work either
way but any changes they make to the core OS, they must apply back to
the source tree. GPL works fine this way as you have several
autonomous units working together.
Lazarus is an application. If I wanted to sell lazarus, I'd be
unable to add any proprietary tech as anything I add would be source or
at the very least a library to plugin. Since I am extending a GPL
application in this way, I'd be required to open source that code
as well. If Lazarus were a platform that facilitated the launching of
autonomous applications (like an OS is), it would be different. But an
IDE doesn't make much sense doing such.
This is how it is different than Linux.
 

Jason Southwell writes:
them in Lazarus, or sell a plugin for Lazarus. I think if you provide a
business model for your packages AND for the developer of the IDE, they
will implement a plugin interface, so that the IDE can stay under the GPL
with the very exception of the plugin interface.
In any case if you don't want to share, Open Source and the GPL is nothing
for you. If you like to share (ideas and money and customers) then you can
make your way with GPL and Open Source!
Eugen
 

external applications themselves. There is no proprietary interface
capability allowed under the GPL.
gain much more commercial investment interest. As GPL, the hastles are
too great that it doesn't make it a viable launching point for a
commercial program.
be shared if someone were to commercialize the Lazarus IDE. But there
are definate things that cannot be done when it is GPL. If I wanted to
implement any proprietary tech into the IDE, either because it is my IP
or because it is IP that I have licensed for the purpose, I cannot
integrate it into a GPL IDE. it is that simple. If it were MPL, I
could still enhance the IDE, release some enhancements to the world and
still keep private those enhancements that I am unable to release to
the public.