Board index » cppbuilder » Re: BCB Delphi IDE

Re: BCB Delphi IDE


2004-10-19 09:30:01 PM
cppbuilder13
Sten Larsson < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:04:22 -0700, "Michael Swindell \(Borland\)"
< XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Won't be much longer before .NET framework is required to run Windows.
>Since WinFX (.NET 3.0) is OS API follow up to Win32, .NET will running
>in every new Windows install.

What do you mean. Will Win32 apps not work under new releases of
Windows? And what is "much longer".

I strongly beleive that Win32 will work for a *very* long time. One
argument would be that we're still able to run plain MS-DOS apps.

-sten

You're free to believe what you wish, but the simple fact is that .NET
will be the core underpinning of any new OS out of Redmond. Sure, Win32
will be *supported*, but IMO only a fool would code to it, given that all
the fancy new abilities will be available only via .NET APIs.
mr_organic
 
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

"Relaxin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
One reason to start using .NET is because your Win32 applications will start
to run slower, as the .NET Framework becomes the top layer and the Win32 API
becomes the bottom layer.
This is just your assumption. I can think of at least one reason why
Win32 could be faster than .Net for ever, depending on how MS
engineers the new OS.
[snip]
Quote
It would be foolish of MS to continue to allow "unmanaged" apps to continue
to present a security threat (virus, worms, hacks, etc) to their products
and OS. This is one of the main pushes behind .NET!
What is foolish is to think that .Net will put an end to virus,
worms, hacks, etc.
Quote
Don't be a fool and wait to long, Steve Ballmer has stated that they
(Microsoft) have bet the company on .NET.
That sounds as "don't be a fool and be a MS drone", which is
self-contradictory :-)
Quote
With a bet like that, I'm sure they are going to make sure odds are in their
favor, by forcing developers to create .NET applications if you want to
remain competitive.
This is FUD.
--
Oscar
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

mr_organic < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
[...]

You're free to believe what you wish, but the simple fact is that .NET
will be the core underpinning of any new OS out of Redmond. Sure, Win32
will be *supported*, but IMO only a fool would code to it, given that all
the fancy new abilities will be available only via .NET APIs.
Only a fool would rewrite his app, given
that he doesn't need all the fancy bells
and whistles of .NET.
Quote
mr_organic
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely
to be prefered to those thinking they've found it."
Terry Pratchett
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
mr_organic < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>[...]
>
>You're free to believe what you wish, but the simple fact is that
>.NET will be the core underpinning of any new OS out of Redmond.
>Sure, Win32 will be *supported*, but IMO only a fool would code to
>it, given that all the fancy new abilities will be available only via
>.NET APIs.

Only a fool would rewrite his app, given
that he doesn't need all the fancy bells
and whistles of .NET.

See how you feel when Avalon is the *only* GDI device available on a
system. Or when Indigo is the only way to do filesystem read/writes. Or
when a library your app depends on is discontinued for a newer, .NET-
enabled version. Or when that MFC DLL you've been depending on for years
suddenly stops working because a dependency has been removed. Or when
you find that the UI "frosting" (buttons, borders, etc.) of your app
looks like complete {*word*99} compared to the newer stuff, and users complain
about it. Or when your old app's database drivers are discontinued in
favor of .NET drivers.
Etc., etc., etc.
mr_organic
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

Quote
People who think that MS is going to withdraw Win32 compatibility at any
time in the next couple of decades are naive in the extreme. There are
still DOS and Win16 calls in WinXP. Win32 will live on for decades.
There is no need to rush to recode to .NET. Unless one sees a compelling
immediate advantage from recoding to .NET it makes no sense to do so.
Some new OS features will not be available in Win32. Just like the
majority of the Win32 API is not available from Win16, let alone DOS.
Can you use the ListView control from DOS? Or DirectX? The same may be
happening to Win32: it could become deprecated, a second-class API for
backward compatibility only. But we have quite a few years before
Longhorn is out (I expect even further delays), and nobody is going to
buy it in the first two years. I didn't start using XP until 2003.
Tom
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
... your app looks like complete {*word*99} compared to the newer stuff,
and users complain about it. Or when your old app's database
drivers are discontinued in favor of .NET drivers.

Etc., etc., etc.
I agreed with your post up to here. {*word*99} is the eye of the beholder,
and while my guis aren't pretty, they work. Even better, old. Yes,
old code that still works is beautiful to me, because it means it was
an investment in time and effort well spent, paying back dividends for
years, and likely for years to come.
Happily for me, my code doesn't have to impress people with fancy
graphics and other gimmicks. I _hate_ trying to impress people who
are impressed by such worthless candy coating. They never appreciate
a good program, just a pretty program.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

mr_organic < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
news:41751b58$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :

>mr_organic < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>>[...]
>>
>>You're free to believe what you wish, but the simple fact is that
>>.NET will be the core underpinning of any new OS out of Redmond.
>>Sure, Win32 will be *supported*, but IMO only a fool would code to
>>it, given that all the fancy new abilities will be available only via
>>.NET APIs.
>
>Only a fool would rewrite his app, given
>that he doesn't need all the fancy bells
>and whistles of .NET.
>

See how you feel when Avalon is the *only* GDI device available on a
system. Or when Indigo is the only way to do filesystem read/writes.
I haven't touched the GDI or the Win32
file system in years. We're developing
apps that compile on a bunch of different
platforms (using a bunch of different
compilers and compiler versions and a
bunch of different std libs). Had I ever
thought of doing GDI stuff or using '\\'
as the path separator, how would that
have compiled on the other platforms?
Quote
Or
when a library your app depends on is discontinued for a newer, .NET-
enabled version.
The (few) libs we use port among quite a
few platforms. They are very unlikely to
suddenly become .NET-only. :)
Quote
Or when that MFC DLL you've been depending on for years
suddenly stops working because a dependency has been removed.
We never used any MFC.
Quote
Or when
you find that the UI "frosting" (buttons, borders, etc.) of your app
looks like complete {*word*99} compared to the newer stuff, and users complain
about it.
When you're compiling the same app on
several platforms, you learn to do good
and usable GUIs that don't use the latest
GUI hype on any one of them.
Quote
Or when your old app's database drivers are discontinued in
favor of .NET drivers.
The little database stuff we ever did was
done doing open source DB stuff.
Quote
Etc., etc., etc.
Do not depend on any one platform. Then
you won't be overly concerned what will
happen when one platform would stop
working for you. You will just port the
app. You will have done this many times
already, so you know it's going to work
out somehow.
However, I strongly agree with those who
doubt this will happen anytime soon.
Quote
mr_organic
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely
to be prefered to those thinking they've found it."
Terry Pratchett
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
[...]

Happily for me, my code doesn't have to impress people with fancy
graphics and other gimmicks. I _hate_ trying to impress people who
are impressed by such worthless candy coating. They never appreciate
a good program, just a pretty program.
Amen.
(I have to add that, if you hate this, then
it's most probably no happy coincidence that
you don't have to do this. Why would you do
a job you hate?)
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely
to be prefered to those thinking they've found it."
Terry Pratchett
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
Happily for me, my code doesn't have to impress people with fancy
graphics and other gimmicks. I _hate_ trying to impress people who
are impressed by such worthless candy coating. They never appreciate
a good program, just a pretty program.

Let me put it this way: when your customers are paying your salary, you
better damn well do what they ask or you'll find yourself out of work.
Your job isn't to be happy, your job is to create programs your customers
use to achieve a certain task.
If you're a hobbyist...well, do what makes you happy, I guess.
mr_organic
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

"Hendrik Schober" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote

Do not depend on any one platform. Then
you won't be overly concerned what will
happen when one platform would stop
working for you. You will just port the
app. You will have done this many times
already, so you know it's going to work
out somehow.
However, I strongly agree with those who
doubt this will happen anytime soon.
So you're one of about 1% of Windows developers who have the luxury of
not using any Windows-specific calls. Big deal.
Here in a place I like to refer to as "the real world", that's not an
option. Our customers use a new-fangled thing called a "graphical user
interface", and close to 100% of our machines use the one on Windows. We
have millions of lines of MFC code, several million more of VCL-based
Delphi and BCB code, tens of millions of Visual Basic code, and a not-
inconsiderable amount of raw Win32 API code floating about.
And I'm not even getting into the third-party COM libraries, database
drivers, and other stuff that is Windows-only.
Further, even if I as a developer *wanted* to use only cross-platform
stuff, it's not my call: I use the tools I'm told to use. I don't get
paid to satisfy my inner geek; I get paid to do what my employer tells me
to do. I can't tell my employer that I won't program to SQL Server
because it's windows-only and that they should use PostreSQL instead; I'd
get laughed out of the room.
Every time I read something like what Hendrik just wrote, I think:
"Either he's an embedded developer, a hobbyist, or unemployed." No one
who works in IT in the Fortune 1000 says stuff like that.
mr_organic
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:
Quote
Let me put it this way: when your customers are paying your salary,
you better damn well do what they ask or you'll find yourself out of
work.
Happily <g>my customers aren't fooled by eye-candy.
Quote
Your job isn't to be happy
Its pursuit is an unalienable right.
Quote
, your job is to create programs your customers use to achieve a
certain task.
That is true too. But when choosing jobs, satisfaction and happiness
are major considerations to me.
Quote
If you're a hobbyist...well, do what makes you happy, I guess.
My sympathies. It seems you don't enjoy your job anywhere near as
much as I do mine.
--
Chris (TeamB);
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

mr_organic < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
[...]

So you're one of about 1% of Windows developers who have the luxury of
not using any Windows-specific calls. Big deal.

Here in a place I like to refer to as "the real world", that's not an
option. Our customers use a new-fangled thing called a "graphical user
interface", and close to 100% of our machines use the one on Windows. [...]
Don't get me wrong -- we do make GUIs, and we
do put a lot of effort into them. It's just
that we don't write against the Win32 API, but
against a higher abstraction.
Also, there is a lot of very successful apps
out there that you can buy for more than one
OS. Porting /is/ the real world.
Quote
[...]

Further, even if I as a developer *wanted* to use only cross-platform
stuff, it's not my call: I use the tools I'm told to use. I don't get
paid to satisfy my inner geek; I get paid to do what my employer tells me
to do. I can't tell my employer that I won't program to SQL Server
because it's windows-only and that they should use PostreSQL instead; I'd
get laughed out of the room.
I have no idea of DB stuff. :)
Quote
Every time I read something like what Hendrik just wrote, I think:
"Either he's an embedded developer, a hobbyist, or unemployed." No one
who works in IT in the Fortune 1000 says stuff like that.
There's a pretty good chance that you have a
rather common commercial app from a major
American software company on your machine that
contains code (and a GUI) we made. That app is
sold for WinNT/2k/XP and for MacOS X.
However, /our/ code which is in there also runs
on Win9X, MacOS Classic, several different Linux
distibutions, BSD, and Sun Solaris. It does so
in several other commercial apps.
So it seems you think wrong.
Quote
mr_organic
Schobi
--
XXXX@XXXXX.COM is never read
I'm Schobi at suespammers dot org
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely
to be prefered to those thinking they've found it."
Terry Pratchett
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

"Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I agreed with your post up to here. {*word*99} is the eye of the beholder,
and while my guis aren't pretty, they work. Even better, old. Yes,
old code that still works is beautiful to me, because it means it was
an investment in time and effort well spent, paying back dividends for
years, and likely for years to come.

Happily for me, my code doesn't have to impress people with fancy
graphics and other gimmicks. I _hate_ trying to impress people who
are impressed by such worthless candy coating. They never appreciate
a good program, just a pretty program.
I agree but unfortunately I spend 60% of my time working on
GUI stuff that is 20% of my code. The non GUI stuff, as long
as it works and there's no efficiency problems, the users are
happy. For the GUI stuff, it's hard to get two people to agree
on what's "pretty". On top of that, our code is used internally
as well as externally and I have more problems with the internal
customers. Unfortunately, some of them are the ones that sign
my paycheck <g>
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:



>... your app looks like complete {*word*99} compared to the newer stuff,
>and users complain about it. Or when your old app's database
>drivers are discontinued in favor of .NET drivers.
>
>Etc., etc., etc.
>
>

I agreed with your post up to here. {*word*99} is the eye of the beholder,
and while my guis aren't pretty, they work. Even better, old. Yes,
old code that still works is beautiful to me, because it means it was
an investment in time and effort well spent, paying back dividends for
years, and likely for years to come.



You know Chris, up until now, I haven't much ever had a reason to
disagree with you, but you know, your naivete
shines through in this post. {*word*99} isn't just in the "eye of the
beholder", why do you think so many more people are using
Trillian ( I'll just use one application niche as an example, though
there are more ), over AIM or YahooIM or MSN ?
Because it not only LOOKS nicer, it FEELS nicer. Personally, I don't IM
that much other than folks at work, so I
dodder along with AIM. BUT, I'd have to be a FOOL ( and I'm certainly
not one ) to say that AIM looks as nice as
Trillian, or MSN feels as nice as Trillian. There is a reason why there
is such diversity in desktop applications, because while
there are people like you and I in certain respect that will dodder
along with "whatever-have-you", there are people
( and there are a whole lot more of them, than there are of us ) who
want that eye-candy.
Quote
Happily for me, my code doesn't have to impress people with fancy
graphics and other gimmicks. I _hate_ trying to impress people who
are impressed by such worthless candy coating. They never appreciate
a good program, just a pretty program.



Luckily for you you haven't had to work in the field where your code has
had to interact with users very much.
There are a quite a few books out there on the subject ( GUI Bloopers,
just to name one ), where you might want
to look and see just how "SERIOUS" all this "IMPRESSING" people is. I've
been involved with UI's ( both at the low-level
Display Driver Level ) and at the application level ( See Amazon
Listing: "Developing Multimedia Applications Under OS/2" ),
and I assure you, that what you write off as "impressing" people isn't
as "FLUFFY" as people think. and no less impressive
than figuring out how to shave off milliseconds off of a database
transactions roundtrip time, by optimizing a stored procedure.
You're obviously entitled to your opinion, Chris. But you're also quite
mistaken, that the subject of UI design, implementation,
and support isn't as important ( if not moreso, these days ) than any
other aspect of Software Development.
 

Re:Re: BCB Delphi IDE

Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
"mr_organic" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >writes:



>Let me put it this way: when your customers are paying your salary,
>you better damn well do what they ask or you'll find yourself out of
>work.
>
>

Happily <g>my customers aren't fooled by eye-candy.



Perhaps your customers have low expectations, or just haven't been
exposed to a better way of working with their machines
(unless you're dealing more with infrastructural or embedded process
which don't REQUIRE much user interaction...in which case,
they wouldn't know any better. ).
Quote
>Your job isn't to be happy
>
>

Its pursuit is an unalienable right.



Oh yeah, why don't you tell Carly Fiorina at HP that you disagree with
here, and that there is a RIGHT in the constitution that SAYS that
you have to have a JOB, much less one where you are happy at. Though I
agree that one should be happy with what they're working on, otherwise
they're doing the wrong job.
Quote
>, your job is to create programs your customers use to achieve a
>certain task.
>
>

That is true too. But when choosing jobs, satisfaction and happiness
are major considerations to me.



You're right, but nowhere in the Constitution of the United States that
you have the right to the pursuit of happiness in your job.
Your employer doesn't necessarily have the dictate to them that their
concern should be YOUR PURSUIT of happiness. For that matter,
your customers don't couldn't care less about your pursuit of happiness.
Quote
>If you're a hobbyist...well, do what makes you happy, I guess.
>
>

My sympathies. It seems you don't enjoy your job anywhere near as
much as I do mine.



Funny, I love my job, and I enjoy it even more when I show off the
interfaces of my products to people and they say,
"And I can do all that from my desktop ?......>Yes!<".