Board index » cppbuilder » BCB9, the hidden truth?

BCB9, the hidden truth?


2004-05-27 03:46:36 AM
cppbuilder100
Who's ready to bet that BCB9, if it ever emerges, will just use
ripped-off MS compiler technology instead of Borland's, just like
the Delphi 8?
And another bet: Win32 native support, if included (which is not
so likely), will use a barely upgraded BCB6 compiler, with most
major bugs from the old days still in.
Z
 
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

"zedd" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Who's ready to bet that BCB9, if it ever emerges, will just
use ripped-off MS compiler technology instead of Borland's,
just like the Delphi 8?
I seriously doubt that.
Quote
And another bet: Win32 native support, if included
(which is not so likely)
It has already been said that BCB9, should it arrive, would be native Win32.
Quote
will use a barely upgraded BCB6 compiler, with most major
bugs from the old days still in.
There is already a push underway privately to get Borland to include the new
compiler that it has been working on for some time now.
Gambit
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

At 21:46:36, 26.05.2004, zedd wrote:
Quote
Who's ready to bet that BCB9, if it ever emerges, will just use
ripped-off MS compiler technology instead of Borland's, just like
the Delphi 8?
You must be thoroughly confusing a few things here.
Delphi 8 uses the Delphi compiler, which is not in the least ripped off
MS compiler technology. It is completely written by Borland. and so are
the Delphi RTL and the VCL for .NET.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)
 

{smallsort}

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

I didn't know that MS had a Delphi compiler! If you're talking about the
IL compiler or whatever it's called, why would Borland even consider
writing their own?
I can't imagine that BCB9 wouldn't support Win32. From what I've seen,
the only reason that Borland is considering reviving the BCB line is
because of the strong demand for the VCL (by Win32 programmers).
zedd < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Who's ready to bet that BCB9, if it ever emerges, will just use
ripped-off MS compiler technology instead of Borland's, just like
the Delphi 8?
And another bet: Win32 native support, if included (which is not
so likely), will use a barely upgraded BCB6 compiler, with most
major bugs from the old days still in.

Z
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

At 21:48:45, 26.05.2004, Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:
Quote

"zedd" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>Who's ready to bet that BCB9, if it ever emerges, will just
>use ripped-off MS compiler technology instead of Borland's,
>just like the Delphi 8?

I seriously doubt that.
It's nonsense. Delphi for .NET uses the Delphi compiler, written by
Borland, and not ripped off at all. I have no idea where he could have
gotten that idea.
Delphi 8 does use, for Windows Forms only, the Windows Forms designer
that comes with the .NET SDK. For the VCL for .NET, Borland's own
designer is used.
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems."
- Paul Erdos
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

"Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
It's nonsense. Delphi for .NET uses the Delphi compiler,
written by Borland, and not ripped off at all. I have no
idea where he could have gotten that idea.
Maybe he is thinking of C#Builder, which does use Microsoft's compiler (only
because it was the only .NET compiler available at the time).
Gambit
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

At 22:44:09, 26.05.2004, Remy Lebeau (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
Maybe he is thinking of C#Builder, which does use Microsoft's compiler
(only because it was the only .NET compiler available at the time).
And because it would be a bit foolish to write a C# compiler when
everyone can get the existing one for free. <g>
And the VB.NET compiler is free too. <vbg>
--
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)
"True. When your hammer is C++, everything begins to look
like a thumb." -- Steve Haflich, in comp.lang.c++
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

It's the other way around. As the CLI is the .NET native code, the
real compiler is the compiler to CLI, the same as Java. There are many
Java VMs and JITs as well as there are at least 2 .NET JITs at the
moment (M$ and MONO). Borland can't write their own JIT just for Delphi
as they will break the .NET requirements all the languages to use the
same JIT on the same system. They may or may not design alternative JIT
in the future, but that is a different story and it will be a separated
product. You statement is simply incorrect, and does not follow the .NET
definitions as represented by M$.
Boian
zedd wrote:
Quote
>Delphi 8 uses the Delphi compiler, which is not in the least ripped off
>MS compiler technology.


Delphi 8 only does the job of a precompiler/parser.
The actual compiler in D8.Net is the JIT compiler.

Z
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

Quote
Delphi 8 uses the Delphi compiler, which is not in the least ripped off
MS compiler technology.
Delphi 8 only does the job of a precompiler/parser.
The actual compiler in D8.Net is the JIT compiler.
Z
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

Quote
And because it would be a bit foolish to write a C# compiler when
everyone can get the existing one for free. <g>
The mono guys rewrote everything from scratch, and they don't have
half the financial founding of Borland.
Z
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

zedd wrote:
Quote
The mono guys rewrote everything from scratch, and they don't have
half the financial founding of Borland.
It's not a question of whether Borland could or couldn't write a C#
compiler but whether they should or shouldn't. Why would they write
their own when they could get a free one from Microsoft instead?
Borland does plenty of stupid things for which they deserve to be
criticized, but there's no reason to pick on them in this case for doing
something smart.
--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

borland has doing something smart lately?
svein-erik
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
zedd wrote:
>The mono guys rewrote everything from scratch, and they don't have
>half the financial founding of Borland.

It's not a question of whether Borland could or couldn't write a C#
compiler but whether they should or shouldn't. Why would they write
their own when they could get a free one from Microsoft instead?
Borland does plenty of stupid things for which they deserve to be
criticized, but there's no reason to pick on them in this case for doing
something smart.

--
Gillmer J. Derge (TeamB)
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

A .NET compiler is a compiler to CLI. A Java compiler is a compiler
to Hot Java. The CLI is defined as the executable medium, and tomorrow
we may see processors that use CLI assemblies as machine code, or we may
not. The compiler to CLI is the real compiler, as the CLI to executable
is just a bit more than fancy assembler. Anything that compiles from
high level language into one type of assembler or another is commonly
accepted as compiler.
zedd wrote:
Quote
>, and does not follow the .NET definitions as represented by M$.


And MS doesn't follow the standard definitions, so what?
If everyone chooses the definition that suits them, nothing
means everything and vice versa.

Z
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

Honestly the guys have their point here. Writing the C# Builder
altogether may not have been such a smart thing except as a testbed for
the Galileo IDE.
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
Quote

svein-erik, such kind of reasoning doesn't help in any discussion. Yes,
Borland have done many smart things lately. Writing their own C# compiler
would have been foolish.
 

Re:BCB9, the hidden truth?

Hi Rudy,
They are on a shaky ground here aren't they ;-)
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
At 23:24:00, 26.05.2004, zedd wrote:


>>, and does not follow the .NET definitions as represented by M$.
>
>And MS doesn't follow the standard definitions, so what?


MS does. Their JITter works with any CLI-compatible code.