Kylix and IDE's

2004-04-14 05:35:19 AM
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
see comments inline..
My point is that Andreas has done a great job on VCL issues,
I think we all agree with you on that one. :)
but I highly doubt those with dbExpress problems would be happy
if patches (obviously non QA'd patches if it is a single person
only) didn't address their problems in database connectivity.
There is a C++/Delphi compiler bug that prevents me from
releasing an IBX for the C++ side of K3, I'm sure all the other
people having compiler issues won't be happy with patches only
to certain areas of Clx.
Definitely! For me the worst bug in Kylix is the Duplicate resource id
issue, although there is a labourious workaround..ugh..
At least there are alternatives to dbExpress, but I have not encountered
too serious problems dbExpress Interbase ->Firebird (not too involved I
admit). I know there are bad issues with Oracle and SQLServer also from
the D7 side.
What about IDE stability?
The Kylix/Delphi IDE has stabilised tremendously on a 2.4.22 kernel and
upwards (using a custom 2.4.24 at the moment) and with some of Andreas's
fixes. The IDE is not perfect, but workable. Borland has build Kylix of
seriously outdated versions of technology (old wine old QT2).
If Borland is going to do right by the Kylix customers they
have to dedicate more than a single developer. They have to
dedicate some QA resources + many other Dev resources. Trying
to do a single person type of patch that addresses only one
area of a product is like only treating the broken arm of a
person in a car accident and ignoring the broken legs,
internal injuries, head trama etc. You might save the arm, but
the patient still dies.
That's what we pay them for! Unless Borland wants to review their
'opening-up' of Kylix IDE and CLX. I am sure many are willing and able
to contribute. I would still even pay Borland for Kylix after that, so
long as I see commitment and followthrough.
Even though there were 7+ individual updates to D7, people still
complain that certain areas were never touched (IDE, compiler
and de{*word*81}). Many of the same areas complained about for D7
are being ignored in this suggestion too.
I must admit the only areas I have trouble in D7 is with dbExpress.
I don't see this
making many happy with the state of Kylix. The only thing that
would make them happy is Kylix being given full attention by
a team large enough to make a real difference - and that that
work go through a full QA process. If you don't need a full QA
of patches, then Andreas' current solution would be just fine,
Let the community do the QA! Surely we are all getting used to the way
OSS is released. Again Borland could review opening-up the Kylix IDE and
CLX. I don't see how they will loose too much money and control.. they
are chasing new IDE's anyways (Galileo and BuiderX)
but people seem to want more than just the unofficial patches.
Borland will not call a patch official if it does not go
through QA, so the only diffeence would be Borland releasing
an unofficial patch or Andreas doing so. In the end there would
be no real difference.
If it works nobody can complain and the fixes will be available in more
acceptable intervals. Again the unofficial patches seem stable enough
and a good limited example.
I'm not happy about the way Kylix has been handled,
It is clear that you are not happy.. like the rest of us.
but I
recognize that Borland has to get a good ROI on their resource
investment to stay in business. Kylix (or maybe more appropriately
the Linux developer market) was not giving them a good enough ROI to continue, at least in 2004, to work on Kylix. They may be
making it impossible to ever revive Kylix in the future because
of their treatment today, but unless there is a sudden change
in the Linux market (which there really is not any sign of
happening soon) that's not necessarily a bad thing (from
Borland's business standpoint).
I don't agree with you, I have never seen this being admitted by Borland
. The latest statements from JK in the Delphinontech ng seemed more like
Borland knows where Kylix is iro the product investment lifecycle. It is
only the beginning. Their treatment of this young product is NOT
understandable however... (what you are trying to say anyways) There may
be other dark forces at play <titc><g>(hint SCO sponsors)
Also remember that from a Linux viewpoint Borland already has JBuilder there, they have CBX there
(so while no real RAD yet, that has been promised) for the C++ line
I wonder if Borland would ever be able to marry the VCL/CLX framework
for RAD into a Java based IDE?
and if Mono takes off they
will have Delphi for .NET there. So IOW, two years from
now they might have basically everything they provide in Kylix
in Linux anyways, but in a more resource friendly manner.
Ha! Who said Mono and MS.Net would ever be fully compatible? Unless
Borland uses Mono (they should rather than MS.Net) or dotGNU for their
IDE's. They might as well forget about an XPlatform 'MS.Net based' IDE.
Do not forget Wine or even CrossOver Office. The D7/Kylix IDE still has
a long time to live... All this X IDE stuff is a looong way off.. Enough
time for a new wine based Kylix IDE. Even better - a wxWidgets based X IDE!
.Net is 'a' solution, not necessary thee solution.
each of those they almost get Linux resource free which greatly
increases the Linux lines' ROI without a needed increase in
Linux market itself that Kylix needs to increase its ROI.
This could also be achieved by other means.. as discussed.