Board index » cppbuilder » Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?


2004-05-14 12:56:32 AM
cppbuilder52
"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Again. I spoke of gcc, not of the programs created by using it.
Also native.
--
Jason.
Hi, I'm Bob. I'm a tomato and I'm here to help you.
 
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
[snip]
Quote

Ed, there is *no* emulator. There is a DLL that implements unix-like
APIs that the compiler and other tools need. Do you call a DLL your app
needs an emulator?
Emulator is something that takes a stream of executable code created for
a *different* target and executes it on a given target. I.E. running
Atari code on a PC.
Having a DLL that *natively* implements an API (even originating in a
different OS) is not running *under* an emulator.
Geez!
.a
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" wrote:
Quote
Fine. You define any program that does not provide its own
implementation of every function used must therefore be using an
emulator. Even if all that it uses is strcmp then it is using an
emulator. The word emulator therfore means anything provided whose
source is not part of the program source.
Ed,
Respectfully,
Thats what Chris was saying that you were saying.
Get some rest.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Fine. You define any program that does not provide its own
implementation of every function used must therefore be using an
emulator. Even if all that it uses is strcmp then it is using an
emulator. The word emulator therfore means anything provided whose
source is not part of the program source.
Call me obtuse, but when you say gcc (or some cygwin based app) requires
an emulator, it appears to me that this is the very definition of
emulator *you* are assuming.
I believe that is the same (mis?)understanding of your position Chris is
referring to as inconsistent.
--
Jason.
Hi, I'm Bob. I'm a tomato and I'm here to help you.
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Valence,
Congrats for a very diplomatic intervention :)
Saulo
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

I don't know how to handle what 'g++ libraries an emulation' means in
this context so will restate. I am speaking of what gcc uses to run
and not what programs creates with it use. Yes, they might or might
not use the same items, but on the subject of requiring emulation I
was not speaking of what one creates with the tool but rather what the
tool itself needs.
I downloaded it and it was not a usable program. It required that you
get several other tools for it to work (even needed yet other tools so
that the download could be unpacked). At least one of those things
was an emulator for some things provided in the linux environment.
'emulator' and 'things provided in the linux environment' are quotes
or near quotes to the text supplied in the docs. The specifics of
what the items emulated are were not listed.
printf is not an emulation. It is code provided in the runtime
libraries for a function which is part of the language. The function
writes to the stdout device, a logical file which exists in the C and
C++ programming model.
My issue with the libraries as used by programs created with the tool
was not emulation but copyright requirements that render it nearly
unusable for commercial programs. Others have pointed out that there
are two sets of libraries, one of which has the copyright to which I
object and the other of which is said to specifically not have the
requirements to which I object. I have not yet found the text of
those specific permissions but accept that they exist.
. Ed
Quote
Gillmer J. Derge wrote in message
news:40a3a699$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

I think his quibble is that so far you've given no
explanation for what makes the g++ libraries an
emulation and VCL not. What is the critical
difference from your point of view? What is the
GNU printf function emulating?
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Same question as you posted in another message, one which I have
already read and replied to. See the reply to that.
. Ed
Quote
Gillmer J. Derge wrote in message
news:40a3748f$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

In your case you are not making a commercial app. You are making
something which you use privately, something that is not related to
the restrictions of which I spoke.
You already knew this about the differences in your situation because
you have explained that fact to me before. That you explained it to
me means that you either wrote the reply copied below for some other
reason or that your memory is shot which I doubt.
. Ed
Quote
Chris Uzdavinis wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

Ed Mulroy wrote:

>As for the gpl terms, messages on here confirmed that it is worse
than
>I thought. Assuming the terms of the license are legal, the terms
>make almost any commercial product created under it not viable.

This is utter and complete nonsense.
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
>...you can access the win32api, which IMHO
>proves that they are not emulators.


An emulator provides functionality for one platform under another.
That the native API is or is not accessable does not determine if it
is an emulator.

Emulator provides *another* platform.
.a
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Quote
Ed, I'm sorry, but you are posting nonsense. CBX
licenses don't expire, unless you are running a beta.
MingW is installed with CBX on Windows
We both loaded the same thing. Isn't it you who posted a message
asking for an extension on the license (which if I remember correctly
did not get a reply, or at least a reply that I saw).
. Ed
Quote
Alex Bakaev wrote in message
news:40a3a7e2$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
>Please *stop* spreading misinformation.


My information is from what I downloaded from gnu and/or read on their
site. If you want to say something different then ok. However that
something was said on here does not mean that what I said is
misinformation.

. Ed


Ed, please, please, post the links/quotes/whatever to support your
unexplainable position.
.a
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
Quote
We both loaded the same thing. Isn't it you who posted a message
asking for an extension on the license (which if I remember correctly
did not get a reply, or at least a reply that I saw).

. Ed

I don't know what you are using and I doubt you possibly can know what
I'm running. I got the license, etc. - it all is running fine. But that
is completely irrelevant as CBX 1.0 is exactly the same in this regard.
.a
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

I appreciate your well-written description of the situation as it now
exists. I learned from your reply.
I had a couple of points.
- gcc requiring an emulator to run under Windows.
- If there were license restrictions which restricted commercial
development, made use of what you created with it impractical
for commerical development.
What you wrote is different than what I read or interpreted from what
I read at the web site and in the docs that I managed to download.
Quote
The point is that the output of the GNU tools
does not fall under the terms of the GPL, ...
Agreed. A program created with the gcc compiler does not fall under
the terms of the GPL as a consequence of the gcc compiler being used
to create it. Any such restrictions would come from static libraries,
startup code or DLL's used by the program and not from the tools used
to create the program. From what you wrote it is Cgwin that requires
what I object to, the GPL.
Quote
I should add that the term "commercial" probably isn't
right in this context. There is no commercial code vs.the
GPL. The GPL does not prohibit commercial use in any
way. You just have to make code that ...
The GPL requires open source. Open source is inherently free and not
commercial in the context in which I am using the term. In retrospect
it would have been better that I used a different term than
'commercial code' but that would require that such a term exist and I
can not think of one. The requirement for source distribution is
annoying in the quantity to be distributed but only annoying. The
part to which I object is that it removes the proprietary nature of
the code. Your work is then de-facto public domain, not commercial.
Quote
Check www.mingw.org. The packages are usually tar'ed
and gzip'ed (the format used for binary packages was up
to the individual package maintainers when I checked the
last time), but I think this shouldn't be a real problem for
non-Unix users < g>.
Of course that is a real problem for non-Linux users.
The compressed file format is alien. I am told that Unix users might
have to deal with differences from the Unix tar format. Windows users
have no native tar format.
. Ed
Quote
Torsten Steuernagel wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Ok.
An emulator provides functionality for another platform under one.
. Ed
Quote
Alex Bakaev wrote in message
news:40a3ada0$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>An emulator provides functionality for one platform
>under another.

Emulator provides *another* platform.
 

Re:Re: So when is Delphi v9 due out?

Ok, so by your definition if I supplied a program or DLL's to be
linked in which made the source for a native Linux program run under
Windows then by your definition it is not an emulator because the
processor is the same.
You have redefined the term emulator. I agree that what you describe
is an emulator. I object to your redefining the term to limit it to
that subset of the normal meaning.
Quote
... implements unix-like APIs ...
If I recall correctly it implements Posix file system APIs not Unix
ones. Posix came later.
. Ed
Quote
Alex Bakaev wrote in message
news:40a3a9ee$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

Ed, there is *no* emulator. There is a DLL that implements
unix-like APIs that the compiler and other tools need. Do
you call a DLL your app needs an emulator?

Emulator is something that takes a stream of executable
code created for a *different* target and executes it on a
given target. I.E. running Atari code on a PC.

Having a DLL that *natively* implements an API (even
originating in a different OS) is not running *under* an
emulator.