Board index » cppbuilder » Modest Proposal For Borland Regards Delphi, BCB, BCBX

2003-10-12 04:24:26 AM
cppbuilder23
Merge the non-.NET version of Delphi into BCBX.
A) Include a Pascal Compiler in BCBX on Windows and Linux and eventually
even for other platforms.
B) Write a fully portable VCL forms designer in Java that makes BCBX
equally capable of doing VCL designing for Pascal and C++ code.
C) Make Pascal apps capable of using VCL controls written in C++ with
some restricted version of C++.
D) Make Pascal capable of using controls from a fancier version of
wxWindows.
E) Make it possible to write wxWindows controls in Pascal that can be
used in C++.
 

Randall Parker < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
[Modest proposals snipped]
I'm curious about what you would qualify as "challenging proposals".
--
Oscar
 

metal coat hanger?
. Ed

{smallsort}

Randall Parker wrote:
complete interoperability between OP and C++Builder at the VCL level
possible, and have been able to achieve only half the equation, I don't
think that they are interested in trying to achieve complete
interoperability with a pure C++ underlying framework like wxWindows, which
would be much harder on their OP language than with the VCL.
 

"Ed Mulroy [TeamB]" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 

"Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
 

Ed Mulroy [TeamB] wrote:
solution? And is the $4 in change, or bills?
David Erbas-White
 

"Randall Parker" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:3f886628$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
you can do that yourself already. The whole point of CBX is that you can
plug in any tools you want.
VCL's RTTI. Since CBX has no VCL at all, its hard to make a designer for
something that is not present. With that said, however, Borland is expected
to make a public announce sometime in the next week or so regarding VCL's
future in CBX.
to support it.
into a DLL or otherwise provide a Pascal wrapper for it. Again, easier said
then done.
Gambit
Gambit
 

Probably get some herbal tea.
. Ed

I doubt it. he'd make herbal tea from roots and leaves and boil it up in a
billyu can over a fire he'd made by rubbing two sticks together!
Rhys Sage.
www.sageworld.freeserve.co.uk for
code snippets and software downloads.
 

LOL!
. Ed

The term "Modest Proposal" is a literary reference to Jonathan Swift and
is used to inject some levity into the delivery of what is a typically
far-reaching and even drastic proposal.
Oscar Fuentes wrote:

Randall Parker wrote:
I doubt whether the British of the eigh{*word*249}th century who read it thought
that it injected some levity in their lives. I am sure you know what is was
about, but if you don't you should look it up and read it.
Your own modest proposal is an ideal situation, which would be unfortunately
very difficult for Borland to accomplish, but I have suggested in the past
that with the VCL it would have been possible to allow Delphi to use
C++Builder components if Borland had decided that the effort was justified.
Evidently they didn't, so I doubt that with a pure C++ framwork rather than
an OP framework they could do it.
 

"Randall Parker" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
message news:3f889678$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
mmmm... I gonna go with the MacGyver theory, instead...
 

Ed,
Yes, read Swift many years ago.
There are a number of parts to my proposal. The underlying idea is that
if one version of Delphi is basically going to live in the .NET CLR
(CLI?) environment and essentially be interchangeable with C# in that
environment then out in the "compile to native" land it makes sense to
put Pascal and C++ together under a different IDE source base. If
Borland is going to go on supporting a Delphi-equivalent on Linux then
doing it under the Java-based IDE and makes a certain amount of sense.
Yes, they had many years in which they failed to make it possible to
write VCL components in C++. I wonder what weighed in their thinking to
cause them not to. Never enough money to fubd it or technical concerns?
I was never going to write VCL components in Pascal. But I would have
seriously considered doing it in C++. I'm guessing I'm not alone on that
score.
The other big disappointment was when they introduced CLX rather than
making the bigger effort to clone VCL onto Linux. I think it could bave
been done even if they would have had to introduce some restrictions.
The idea of writing Win apps on top of the Qt lib seems pretty dumb by
comparison. Why hobble your larger OS market client apps with a larger,
slower, buggier, and more limited portability library of that sort?
Edward Diener wrote: