Board index » delphi » Re: Bye bye

Re: Bye bye


2006-12-30 04:35:52 AM
delphi278
Rick, I have been teetering on abandoning borland as well for .net
2.0/C#
I use visual studio 2005 quite a bit at work and I love C#/.net 2.0
conceptually.
I am currently building an app in C++ builder. it is a thick client app
with some winsock/middleware. I started to switch it to C# but 4 things
are keeping me from doing it (for now):
1. Having to deploy that huge .net runtime
2. My app uses 1000's of objects and im just not convinced GC is going
to work well for me. I just know ill end up with dangling references
eating up megs of memory. I really like controlling memory.
3. .net versionitis. I am worried that m$ will release service packs to
the .net 2 runtime that may break my app. I also have to make sure my
app runs on 3.x, 4.x, etc. I dont wan't this extra support hassle.
win32 is stable. This is good.
4. reverse engineering of code. I am not convinced obfiscators are
really going to solve that problem.
I am going to give codegear one more chance here. I broke down and
bought BDS pro and will continue to build the app in C++. I hope they
don't let me down. I wish they would just abandon their .net delphi
initiave and focus on win32 tools and a web 2.0 IDE/Framework
Rick Beerendonk writes:
Quote
>Give Godegear a chance and wait for the next delphi version...

I have been waiting for years. Enough is enough. It is clear that the next
big thing isn't coming from CodeGear in the near future, so I don't want to
waste time on getting to know the stuff that comes out of CodeGear's
factory.

>They want to take there look back to the developers... and we should be so
>considerate to wait I this really be happend.

Borland/CodeGear didn't take me serious for years be you ask me to keep them
serious after all those years?

>Nevertheless Delphi is still innovative for W32. But Codegear have a lot
>of work to hold this...

I don't do win32 anymore. Productivity on that platform is low. Applications
look outdated. I like to keep my customers as well.

Rick


 
 

Re: Bye bye

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
Do you have .NET 3.0 installed on a machine with DirectX-9c video
capability?

If yes then for something commercial and useful take a look at the New
York Times NewsReader which uses WPF.
OK, it is nice, but I can not see why this required .NET 3.0. Or am I
missing something? What exactly is *SO* amazing about it?
Cheers,
Kevin.
 

Re: Bye bye

Kevin B writes:
Quote
OK, it is nice, but I can not see why this required .NET 3.0. Or am I
missing something? What exactly is *SO* amazing about it?
And it looks as if they have a slight glitch in the UI for viewing
images- the scrollbar docks itself to the right of image as you zoom in
and out. {*word*193}...
I'm sure it was easier to write this in WPF but it certainly isn't one
of those knock-your-socks-off-I-have-to-do-dot-net-3.0-now types of
apps. I have seen better effects in some of .NET 3.0 sample apps I've
played with.
But yes... I do want to play with .NET 3.0 some more in case you were
wondering.
Cheers,
Kevin.
 

Re: Bye bye

Quote
I'm sure it was easier
Understatement of the year.
Rick
 

Re: Bye bye

"Kevin B" writes:
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:
>Do you have .NET 3.0 installed on a machine with DirectX-9c video
>capability?
>
>If yes then for something commercial and useful take a look at the New
>York Times NewsReader which uses WPF.

OK, it is nice, but I can not see why this required .NET 3.0. Or am I
missing something?
Try duplicating it it in Delphi Win32 and you might get a hint.
Quote
What exactly is *SO* amazing about it?
Did someone claim amazement, I said it was commerical and useful.
 

Re: Bye bye

Easier doesn't mean better ;-)
 

Re: Bye bye

Rick Beerendonk writes:
Quote
Goodbye to all! Thanks for years of great fun and good business!

Rick
Let me guess... Delphi 8 vs .NET 1.1 SP1
That did it for me.
--
Carl
 

Re: Bye bye

Carl Caulkett writes:
Quote
Let me guess... Delphi 8 vs .NET 1.1 SP1

That did it for me.
And yet, you're still here. Being nostalgic?
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

Re: Bye bye

"Kevin B" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
I.P. Nichols writes:
>Do you have .NET 3.0 installed on a machine with DirectX-9c video
>capability?
>
>If yes then for something commercial and useful take a look at the New
>York Times NewsReader which uses WPF.

OK, it is nice, but I can not see why this required .NET 3.0. Or am I
missing something? What exactly is *SO* amazing about it?
The NYT reader uses the MS technology called XPS (similar to Adobe PDF)
which is part of Net 3.0. All rendering is done via XPS.
Dan
 

Re: Bye bye

John Jacobson writes:
Quote
>You have years developing a newsreader. Is that writed in delphi or
>ASM?
a few years now. I am not sure why you think it has any relevance to
the issue of the productivity of Win32 versus .NET., unless you are
suggesting it would have been developed/redesigned faster if it had
been written in .NET. I don't think that is true, but it is an
academic question anyway. .NET was not even available when I did the
first four rewrites.
Is available now. And improving developers productivity, in many ways.
I recommend to you study it in detail because it is really profitable
for the developer as soon as it is known.
For your *Duke Nukem Forever* project, personally I feel rewarded with
products that other persons can enjoy.
Obviously you and I are absoultamente different and of this diversity
done the world.
--
Donald.
 

Re: Bye bye

"Donald Shimoda" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Is available now. And improving developers productivity, in many ways.
I recommend to you study it in detail because it is really profitable
for the developer as soon as it is known.
I have studied it, but I see no evidence that it is improving the software
development lifecycle very much. Exactly how is .NET improving the user
requirements, design, testing/QA, deployment and support of software? Coding
is just about 5% of the entire software product cycle, so even if .NET was
improving coding efficiency by 100% that would be only a 5% improvement in
the software development lifecycle. Not enough to get very e{*word*277}d about.
I like .NET and see no reason not to use it on Windows servers. For clients
it is not always such a great choice. In fact, I know of some clients where
it is downright unacceptable.
Like all new frameworks and technologies, .NET is good to look at and use in
some new projects, but rewriting existing working code just to use .NET is
silly. There should be a good business reason for rewriting.
 

Re: Bye bye

Bruce McGee writes:
Quote
Carl Caulkett writes:

>Let me guess... Delphi 8 vs .NET 1.1 SP1
>
>That did it for me.

And yet, you're still here. Being nostalgic?
Yeah, well. Christmas and all that... I just dropped in. Actually it's
more because of the the whole Codegear thing. I was just curious to see
how things are going. It seems like the commitment and the spirit is
there ('nuff respect, Nick). I hope it all goes well :-)
--
Carl
 

Re: Bye bye

John Jacobson writes:
Quote

Like all new frameworks and technologies, .NET is good to look at and
use in some new projects, but rewriting existing working code just to
use .NET is silly. There should be a good business reason for
rewriting.
You rewrite 5 times your newsreader, dont see any reason to consider
*silly* rewrite it again.
--
Donald
 

Re: Bye bye

Carl Caulkett writes:
Quote
Yeah, well. Christmas and all that... I just dropped in. Actually it's
more because of the the whole Codegear thing. I was just curious to
see how things are going. It seems like the commitment and the spirit
is there ('nuff respect, Nick). I hope it all goes well :-)
Fair enough. I would be curious to hear what you think of the next release.
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
 

Re: Bye bye

"Dan Palley" writes:
Quote
>>
>>If yes then for something commercial and useful take a look at the New
>>York Times NewsReader which uses WPF.
>
>OK, it is nice, but I can not see why this required .NET 3.0. Or am I
>missing something? What exactly is *SO* amazing about it?

The NYT reader uses the MS technology called XPS (similar to Adobe PDF)
which is part of Net 3.0. All rendering is done via XPS.
The MS technology called XPS is a document format just as PDF is a document
format and gets it is name from " XML Paper Specification". The files that
are downloaded to the NYT reader aren't XPS files but rather are ordinary
text files that carry the file extension .nyt.
A discussion of the XPS specification can be found here:
msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/06/01/XMLPaperSpecification/default.aspx
A discussion of the typographic features of WPF can be found here:
msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms742190.aspx