Board index » kylix » Re: Kylix for Apple's OS X?

2003-07-07 05:36:31 PM
kylix2
cricque wrote:
time. As a matter of fact one source/application created with the
multiplatform Qt C++ ADF can natively compile for four different
platforms Unix/Linux, Mac OS X, embedded Linux and for Windows.
The interesting thing is that the Qt provides a graceful mechanism for
dynamic library loading. Another interesting thing is that Kylix
(still useful and powerful) makes it easy to create shared libraries.
The implication of this is that one could use and reuse existing
Delphi code, converted to a shared object and combine it with a Qt 3.2
C++ GUI application. This provides an easy transition path from Delphi
to C++; your Linux application can be written in 90% in Kylix/Delphi
and 10% in Qt Designer/Qt C++. ;-)
juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
Packages: tar.gz, self-installable, RPM, LCR,
and standalone executables.
 

Hi all,
I did a search for Apple in this ng but didn't find anything, but I was wondering if it was likely that Kylix would be updated to work on Apple's OS X? I believe that OS is based on BSD, which I also believe to be a very close relative to Linux.
Feel free to correct me if Im wrong, Im just after the facts.
Thanks
Member Number 5
 

"Member Number 5" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >schreef in bericht
X? I believe that OS is based on BSD, which I also believe to be a very
close relative to Linux.
Borland is gonna make a compiler for Mac OS
OS X is based on some *nix version, don't know which one. But the main thing
is Macintosch uses a differenct cpu type,
and that is the problem, different instrcutions etc, try searching this
specific group, there were a couple of posts on this
topic already
 

{smallsort}

"Member Number 5" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote...
X? I believe that OS is based on BSD, which I also believe to be a very close
relative to Linux.
Kylix & Delphi produce Intel x86 compatible executables. Danny Thorpe has
suggested that 64-bit compiler support will come via .Net, or at least first
from .Net. Thomas Theobald, when he was still with Borland, has indicated
that something on the order of millions of $ (USD) worth of paid up pre-orders
would be required *before* Borland would start working on a native compiler
for any other CPU architecture - whether it's PowerPC, ARM, the mobile TI
thingy, etc. They don't/didn't believe there would be enough return to
justify the investment.
Apparently changing the compiler to support different instruction sets / CPU's
is even harder than changing the VCL libraries to work on a different O/S.
If you want to search for more details, tamaracka.com has an easier way to
just get "Borland" related newsgroups, with most of the history there too.
--
-Brion
Team JEDI, 2001 Spirit of Delphi Award Winners
www.delphi-jedi.org
Fresno Area Delphi Users Group
groups.yahoo.com/group/FresnoDelphi
 

development. As long as OSX is not supported that claim is not a valid
one even close. At least for Kylix. A competitor like Python with
wxPython comes much closer.
Borland might not see a market opportunity on Apples as they don't see a
50 million market opportunity. But do they consider the fact that they
will loose money on the other platforms because customers like me won't
buy the next Delphi/Kylix version if OSX is not supported?
I for one am really giving Python with wxWindows a serious look. Please,
Borland don't make it that hard for me and just compile to PowerPC too.
And start supporting Delphi/Kylix better, but that's an entirely other
issue.
Jan Derk
 

"Jan Derk" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
You should be asking the Open Source/Linux community for better support of
commercial software.
 

support than Borland does for Delphi/Kylix.
Delphi/Kylix still got the edge, but on some areas (like support and
bringing patches) Borland is slipping. I hope they found out and learn
before it is too late.
Jan Derk
 

"Jan Derk" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
support too. But unfortunately, this negates any reason for having
developed the product in the first place.
The real problem is that a Linux product requires too much support. This is
not Borland's fault, it's the way the operating system is being built and
distributed; coupled with a lack of concern for commercial developers.
 

Jan Derk < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message news:<3f0ac35d$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM >...
Apple room playing with OSX. Sluggish for my taste, but very
beautiful and sweet. Still, Apple only has 2% market share and
dropping,
Macs and OSX are an expensive toy, especially outside the U.S.
Borland would be crazy to spend time and money on this tiny niche
while it can't even support Kylix on recent distros. It just ain't
going to happen. Ever.
Apple should pay for a port, but do they even have C++ bindings for
Cocoa? Or do you still have to use Objective C? And don't even mention
the Java Cocoa bindings. Mac OSX just looks like a truly grim
development platform.
 

Jan Derk wrote:
--
Dave Nottage (TeamB)
 

JQP wrote:
than zero? Any product requires adequate support to satisfy market
requirements, it does not matter if it is for Linux, Windows or for
any other platform.
What more the Linux developers could do to facilitate one commercial
software vendor? They do provide unrestricted access to the source
code of the operating system to anybody with a PC and a modem. The
plans for a new Linux feature are known a way in advance and are
openly and publicly discussed. The glibc changes was known for a
very, very long time to anybody interested with this subject; any
commercial software vendor could and should be prepared in advance, as
many did. It is not like the new glibc was a secrete project and all
of a sudden all major distros start using it, just to destroy all the
commercial software. ;-)
Obviously, the introduction of the new version of glibc did not stop
many commercial software makers to provide updates to theirs
respectful products or providing a new version of it, only days or
weeks after the major distribution start using it. You can lead a
horse to water, but can you make him drink? What more the Linux
developers could do to facilitate one commercial software vendor? Do
they need to stop developing Linux in order to meet the commercial
software maker development and QA cycles? (which is secret, by the
way) You are certainly not suggesting that the Linux developers should
make all the necessary changes to the commercial product and recompile
it. Surely it could be possible, if they would have an access to the
source code, and get paid for it, that is ;-)
juliusz
--
InstallMade - Kylix-specific installer/builder
www.superobject.com/installmade/
Packages: tar.gz, self-installable, RPM, LCR,
and now creates standalone executables.
www.superobject.com/installmade/stalone/standalone.html
 

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:12:10 +0200, Jan Derk < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
don't entirely understand all the issues yet, but it looks probable
that BlackAdder will support OSX development in the near future.