Board index » kylix » Kylix 4.0

Kylix 4.0


2004-01-09 06:38:38 PM
kylix0
When have the next version of Kylix ?
the Kylix 4.0
 
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

In < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >viviane lima - * - * - wrote:
Quote
When have the next version of Kylix ?

the Kylix 4.0


Ask again in 2005. Borland won't do anything about Kylix this year.
Stefan.
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

On 01/09/04 19:38 +0900, viviane lima - * - * - wrote:
Quote
When have the next version of Kylix ?

the Kylix 4.0
Borland has stated that there will be no new Kylix versions until
2005.
trane
--
//------------------------------------------------------------
// Trane Francks XXXX@XXXXX.COM Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Kylix 4.0

Marc Collin wrote:
Quote
viviane lima - * - * - wrote:
>When have the next version of Kylix ?
>
>the Kylix 4.0

kylix is dead
Well, perhaps Kylix is dead, but it will be in use for a long time ..
It is appearing that Borland shifted its focus on .NET, and the
potential success of .NET depends strictly on the acceptance of this
Microsoft controlled technology by developers, at this time the
interests of Microsoft and Borland are overlapping; it appearing to me
that the general idea is to stir all the Delphi/Win32, BCB and
Linux/Kylix developers in .NET direction, to make them buy and use
.NET products. One of the effective ways to do this is to make other
products and technologies less attractive. But lets hope that this
will change...after the fever is over. ;-)
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

viviane lima - * - * - wrote:
Quote
When have the next version of Kylix ?

the Kylix 4.0
kylix is dead
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

Try www.freepascal.org & www.lazarus.freepascal.org
It's for Win32 and Linux platforms.
"viviane lima - * - * -" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >schrieb im Newsbeitrag
Quote
When have the next version of Kylix ?

the Kylix 4.0




 

Re:Kylix 4.0

"Marc Collin" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
kylix is dead
With threads like the one before this I doubt it.
I guess Borland screwed up jumping in on the
Linux rush but they will be back just like with
IB only next time they will get it right.
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

"Pete" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
With threads like the one before this I doubt it.
I guess Borland screwed up jumping in on the
Linux rush but they will be back just like with
IB only next time they will get it right.
Yes, they jumped in only to discover there was no rush to speak of.
CBuilderX is their "next time" and they are much closer to getting it right
IMO.
I think they now realize that there just isn't enough marketplace demand to
support a native, Linux only tool.
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

juliusz wrote:
Quote
It is appearing that Borland shifted its focus on .NET, and the
My guess is that the next version of Kylix is based on the MSIL compiler
from Delphi 8 .net and the mono project. This will make Kylix executables
able to run on any processor architecture that mono supports, and it will
also give access to a large number of 3rd party components which is one of
the main problems with Kylix right now.
I don't think there will ever be a big market for a proprietary x86-only
compiler on Linux.
Lars.
--
Dybdahl Engineering
dybdahl.dk/
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

Lars B. Dybdahl wrote:
Quote
juliusz wrote:
>It is appearing that Borland shifted its focus on .NET, and the

My guess is that the next version of Kylix is based on the MSIL compiler
from Delphi 8 .net and the mono project. This will make Kylix executables
able to run on any processor architecture that mono supports, and it will
also give access to a large number of 3rd party components which is one of
the main problems with Kylix right now.

I don't think there will ever be a big market for a proprietary x86-only
compiler on Linux.

Lars.

mono will be alway late comparay microsoft
nothing guaranty that a ms .net program will work fine under mono
java is better for that
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

Marc Collin wrote:
Quote
nothing guaranty that a ms .net program will work fine under mono
I didn't say that it would be anything compatible with Microsoft .net - I
said it will use the MSIL compiler and run on mono. This is already
possible yet, and unless mono intends to break backwards compatibility with
themselves, it's a platform for MSIL compilations.
Quote
java is better for that
Show me an Open Source Java runtime that really works, for which Borland has
an ObjectPascal compiler.
Lars.
--
Dybdahl Engineering
dybdahl.dk/
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

IMHO the new move of compiler technology to splitting the compiler into
a language dependent but processor and OS independent part (running at
the developer's system, producing e.g. CIL code or Java byte code, to be
either processed in a second step at the developer's or to be deployed)
and a language independent but target processor and OS dependent part
(running either at the developer's site or sand alone or when loading at
the target system) is quite obvious. So your suggestion sounds very
likely.
-Michael
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

Quote
nothing guaranty that a ms .net program will work fine under mono

Seems like a big chance for Borland to prove their tools to be more
useful (producing stuff usable on more systems), than the compilers from
MS. Let's hope they use that chance.
-Michael
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

Quote
I think they now realize that there just isn't enough marketplace demand to
support a native, Linux only tool.
When the .NET way (with MONO on linux etc. and whatever on other OSes
(Mac, IBM Mainframe etc.) really shows to be a way to create closed
source OS and CPU independent software for the "Desktop", why should
anybody want Kylix (Linux only, IA32 only).
Lets hope at least one will happen (globally usable .NET or reactivation
of Kylix).
-Michael
 

Re:Kylix 4.0

Michael Schnell wrote:
Quote
IMHO the new move of compiler technology to splitting the compiler into
a language dependent but processor and OS independent part (running at
the developer's system, producing e.g. CIL code or Java byte code, to be
either processed in a second step at the developer's or to be deployed)
and a language independent but target processor and OS dependent part
(running either at the developer's site or sand alone or when loading at
the target system) is quite obvious. So your suggestion sounds very
likely.
New Move?
I seem to recall that a linux was designed to be machine
independent, so that only the core element changed depending
on the target hardware, and everything else was generic. The
problem is when people break the barrier in the 'interests
of performance' then the ideal is destroyed.
Didn't the same thing happen again when someone decided they
wanted a 'better' Java ;)
.NET is just another example of NOT wanting to be
independent of OS, so why are we playing lemmings with it?
For myself it is now too late for Kylix, and Builder - I
have had to switch to something that is currently platform
independent and available for distribution. PHP may not be
elegant, but the way I am using it, it is 'processor and OS'
independent and the accelerator/server provide machine
specific performance - and it's been around a while.
--
Lester Caine
-----------------------------
L.S.Caine Electronic Services