Board index » kylix » Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??


2003-12-08 09:36:21 PM
kylix1
"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
It may very well be that they control Java. If they control Java in order
to keep it cross-platform, I do not have any problem because it's in the
advantage of the user.
Considering Sun's long and distinguished history as a kind, benevolent and
charitable organization, I'm sure you're right, it's all being done for your
benefit.
 
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news:3fd47e00$ XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote

Considering Sun's long and distinguished history as a kind, benevolent
and charitable organization, I'm sure you're right, it's all being
done for your benefit.

We'll see. Sun does not have a dominating position, yet. If they tried to
turn Java into some kind of really proprietary thing, they will lose
quickly.
Unfortunately this does not happen in the case of MS.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"Alessandro Federici" <alef@remobjects[remove-this].com>wrote in
Quote
"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>However, if you mean "the most widely used
>open cross-platform standard", I agree.

That is what I meant.

>>I'll settle for a "nice try" <G>
>I'd say that it much depends on what you want to do. However, I think
>that the concept is not so bad, but it needs to be polished up a
>little bit and - IMO more important - kept up to date.

A nice try then? ;-)
No, more than a nice try.
Quote
[..]
>Full ACK. If it's just *nix again, it would not be cross-platform :-)

??? Just make an API layer and implement it at best on each OS.
Not everything has to be portable. Some features on Windows don't
exist on *nix and vice versa.
I agree. However, things which need to be done on "all" OSes should be
provided through an abstraction layer.
If I want to open a dialog, I want to open a dialog. I do not care it's X
or Windows. The goal is the same. The difference is in the implementation
of the layer.
It's fine if a library implements features of a OS, but these libraries
should be seperated from the cross-platform libraries.
It's IMO OK if e.g. CrossPlatform.Forms calls Windows.Forms in the
Windows-implementation of CrossPlatform.Forms, and XWindow.Forms in the
*nix implementation. All I want is to do as little as possible changes
when I port an application.
Quote
>And here I see the problem, too. I rather guess that MS will fight
>such a project.

All I hear are guesses. WHere's the beef? <G>
MS's position and history.
Quote
>If I want to hear horror-stories, I read a book, not a newsgroup ;-)

That ain't that bad <G>It could have been IBM or Sun
ACK. It's bad whenever a company has a dominating position and abuses
this position. IBM is just the MS of the past.
A few years ago I thought that it's quite good that one company provides
the OS for almost everything, because we would not have to provide
software for 100s of different OS's (I'm lazy, you know). But I changed
my opinion, because I see how MS (ab)uses it's position.
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
However, if you mean "the most widely used
open cross-platform standard", I agree.
That is what I meant.
Quote
>I'll settle for a "nice try" <G>
I'd say that it much depends on what you want to do. However, I think
that the concept is not so bad, but it needs to be polished up a little
bit and - IMO more important - kept up to date.
A nice try then? ;-)
[..]
Quote
Full ACK. If it's just *nix again, it would not be cross-platform :-)
??? Just make an API layer and implement it at best on each OS.
Not everything has to be portable. Some features on Windows don't exist on
*nix and vice versa.
Quote
And here I see the problem, too. I rather guess that MS will fight such a
project.
All I hear are guesses. WHere's the beef? <G>
Quote
If I want to hear horror-stories, I read a book, not a newsgroup ;-)
That ain't that bad <G>It could have been IBM or Sun
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
We'll see. Sun does not have a dominating position, yet. If they tried to
turn Java into some kind of really proprietary thing, they will lose
quickly.
Java *is* a really proprietary thing.
Quote
Unfortunately this does not happen in the case of MS.
You are correct, this can not happen with MS. There is no way that MS can
demand royalties or fees for the use of C#.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I agree. However, things which need to be done on "all" OSes should be
provided through an abstraction layer.
If I want to open a dialog, I want to open a dialog. I do not care it's X
or Windows. The goal is the same. The difference is in the implementation
of the layer.
Andreas. This is exactly what I was trying to say.
Any library offers that, to some extent. My point was that instead of
mimicing or implementing *just* the ADO.Net one (or WinForms or whatever)
they could create their own abstraction library with their own classes, etc
and implement it on both systems. It would also be crucial to the success of
such architecture not to just stop at a minimum common denominator but
extend it on both OSes in different ways.
This way people will have choices: go full 100% just one platform, target
both. All this without dependencies on MS's architectures or patents. It's
perfectly doable.
Quote
It's fine if a library implements features of a OS, but these libraries
should be seperated from the cross-platform libraries.
[..] All I want is to do as little as possible changes
when I port an application.
Of course.
Quote
>All I hear are guesses. WHere's the beef? <G>
MS's position and history.
Which we already noticed points to a different interpretation. They were the
first doing a port on a non-Windows system.
Porting .Net on Linux would greatly benefit MS' penetration IMO and
potentially damage Sun's interest.
Quote
ACK. It's bad whenever a company has a dominating position and abuses
this position. IBM is just the MS of the past.
I strongly disagree but that would open up a long discussion in which we
will both end up keeping our opinions ;-)
Quote
A few years ago I thought that it's quite good that one company provides
the OS for almost everything, because we would not have to provide
software for 100s of different OS's (I'm lazy, you know). But I changed
my opinion, because I see how MS (ab)uses it's position.
I disagree again. I really don't see them abusing their position as they
used to.
It was true a few years back, not bad now (IMO of course).
Fact is that if it wasn't for things done by Borland and MS, I don't think
many of us would be developers now (for a lot of reasons).
Have a good one!
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

JQP wrote:
Quote
"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Yet, this is PRECISELY what you have asked Sun to do with Java.

I haven't asked Sun to do anything.

Sun is asking the world to accept the facade of openness they've
constructed
around Java as they maintain strict control. No standards organization
would buy into it. Anyone who does buy into it deserves whatever future
penalty Sun decides to impose as the price for their own stupidity.
So you are saying NET is open? You still have not answered my question as to
why MS will not allow anyone to create their own version of NET that would
be totally compatible with MS using the MS code base. Sun has done this, MS
will not!!!
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

pNichols < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in
Quote
I do not think it costs them a fortune, but they are making more money
than Sun. I fail to see how you support the proprietary model of MS
NET and criticize Java. Very contradictory.
That's one of the few problems I see. If Sun does not make enough money,
they /might/ want to try something to make more money with Java. However,
since Sun is not in the position of MS, they might have to be more
careful.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM :
Quote
"Andreas Prucha" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>We'll see. Sun does not have a dominating position, yet. If they
>tried to turn Java into some kind of really proprietary thing, they
>will lose quickly.

Java *is* a really proprietary thing.

>Unfortunately this does not happen in the case of MS.

You are correct, this can not happen with MS. There is no way that MS
can demand royalties or fees for the use of C#.
I do not consider C# as the most important part of .NET, neither the
language Java in the case of Java.
Both are just languages. IMO the VM and the standard libraries are way
more important.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
So you are saying NET is open?
No, I thought we were talking about how free, open and liberating Java is?
The word ".NET" did not appear anywhere in my post.
Quote
You still have not answered my question as to
why MS will not allow anyone to create their own version of NET that
would
be totally compatible with MS using the MS code base.
Was there a question? I must have lost interest before I made it that far.
Quote
Sun has done this, MS will not!!!
Sun has done it but not for free. The full cost is as yet unknown and
subject to change. Sun wants as many people as possible to invest as much
in possible in Java before the full cost is revealed.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

JQP wrote:
Quote
"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>So you are saying NET is open?

No, I thought we were talking about how free, open and liberating Java is?
The word ".NET" did not appear anywhere in my post.

>You still have not answered my question as to
>why MS will not allow anyone to create their own version of NET that
would
>be totally compatible with MS using the MS code base.

Was there a question? I must have lost interest before I made it that
far.

>Sun has done this, MS will not!!!

Sun has done it but not for free. The full cost is as yet unknown and
subject to change. Sun wants as many people as possible to invest as much
in possible in Java before the full cost is revealed.
JQP, you are being ridiculous and ignoring the facts. IBM, Apple, Oracle,
Nokia, CA, BEA, Borland, etc. are already using Java technology and in the
case of IBM, Jeode, Kava, Apple, QT, etc have built their own Java
frameworks, compilers, and JVMs, JITs. At least four open source projects
have also built their own JVMs and JITs, each totally compatine with Sun's
implementations (as in J2SE, J2EE, and J2ME).
I do not think it costs them a fortune, but they are making more money than
Sun. I fail to see how you support the proprietary model of MS NET and
criticize Java. Very contradictory.
Of course, you seem to think a language (C#), without a compiler or RT (in
the case of managed code envrionments), is worth a fortune <G>. A language
without a compiler and runtime (or native compile to exe, bin, com) is
worthless.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I do not think it costs them a fortune, but they are making more money
than
Sun. I fail to see how you support the proprietary model of MS NET and
criticize Java. Very contradictory.
Sun is free to play the game any way they want. I'm free to either play
along or decline and walk away if I don't like their rules. In this
particular case, I choose the latter for reasons already iterated.
No contradiction, it's just free enterprise.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

Alessandro Federici wrote:
Quote
"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...

>No need. As I stated, what company wants to replace it multiplicity of
>language environments and maintenance nightmares with more maintenance
>nightmares? It doesn't make any sense at all. Read the reports
>Alessandro, Java is used in 75% of all Enterprises. Wanna make a bet that
>NET doesn't have anywhere near this number?

Paul, the fact Java is used in 75% of the Enterprises is irrelevant and I
am not here to dispute that.
It could be used even in 100% of them for that matter. What matters is
that most Enteprises use mixed environments (Solaris, Windows and recently
Linux) and and have mixed needs *also* for languages. The Enterprises that
develop their own software have a big variety of tools and languages used
(i.e. could be Phyton+Java+C++ or VB+C++ and Java. You take your favorite
combo or add what you want. Point is language interoperability is
something that has always been needed and tried to be resolved in many
ways . See Corba and COM for instance. Now there's a better answer to that
problem). Java solves some issues, languages like C++ or VB solve others.
Delphi would have probaibly solved most of them but that's a different
story since it never unfortunately got the penetration it deserved.

I would agree with the above and I am not arguing that point. My point was
and is that there is no need to adopt a new platform and in that adoption
bastardizing the code base by using x number of languages.
X language is not a need usually, for those changing frameworks (as I stated
many times, I see how it helps in the short term, but in the long term, you
wind up with a [source code/maintainence nightmare] mess). Why use more
than one NET or Java language for your code base, when it will buy you
little to nothing? It doesn't make long term strategic sense.
You can of course, use Delphi, C#, VB. Cobol. etc to develop your NET
framework, in the same way you could use Jython, Oberon, Component Pascal,
Cantebury Pascal, etc. for your Java codebase. Why do we not see the
popularity of all of the other Java languages? Because it is not seen by
any IT firm, that I am aware of, as a good course of action. Why? Because
the smart IT shop looks at all of these and ask a very good question, Why
should we use all of the other languages when the Java language for the
Java platform, is the best fit and ensures our code base remains
maintaninable and extendable by all those using Java?
The same will eventually happen with NET, I predict. C# will eventually
become the de facto standard for NET, not all of the other languages (and
yes, I know quite a few are using VB.NET now). You can argue with this if
you wish. I am not stating it as a factual basis, but rather an opinion,
based upon what has been and how industries have gone with the only other
widely accepted Managed Code environment.
Quote

And why do you need to shift also this branch of the thread to something
nobody said?
I never claimed companies will/should or did drop Java for Delphi.
No, but you asked why Delphi was not built using the JVM and instead went
for NET. My statement answered that question. It was pertaining to "no
market share to make it worthwhile."
Even if there were a Delphi for JVM, it would probably be used by only a few
Delphi programmers, but it would never gain Enterprise acceptance for the
same reason none of the other 20 or so languages for the JVM have gained
acceptance in this sphere.
Quote
Enterprise development was between Java and C/C++ with some sparkles of VB
(for clients and because of wide adoption). Now there's a new kid in the
block, .Net, which solves a variety of issues Java or C++ don't solve (and
of course, introduces some that maybe Java and ++ already resolved years
ago). Still it fits a need.

What issues does NET solve that cannot be solved with Java and/or C++?
The only one I can possibly see is that it allows Windows development teams
a short term fix by allowing the developers to use a language they are
familiar with to start developing NET applications that will allow
inter-communication with each other, while leveraging some of their
existing code base. Short term, yes, that helps. Long term, it doesn't do a
lot to cut down on maintenance issues. In fact, it could (unless handled
very judiciously), mean that the code base would continue to be
multi-language, and therefore multi-skills required for updates,
maintenance, etc. In this case, what does it provide for the company that
is a plus?
Instead of one development team needed to update the application and/or
Enterprise code base, you would need to multiply the number of developers
needed by a factor equivalent to the number of languages used.
No one is saying that all code should be Java, C++, or NET. But the strategy
to use another language and/or platform, should be a strategic one based
upon need and necessity, nor governed by preference or language/platform
religion.
Most of our own new application development is Java based, but not all. We
use C++ a small minority of the time, because it is a better fit. I have no
problem using Delphi for Windows only based programming either. Kylix was
an option for Linux only programming, but I am afraid that option is not a
good one, due to Borland's recent decision not to support or upgrade it to
keep up with new Linux development and libraries.
I do not blame Borland entirely for this decision about Kylix either. NET
forced Borland to change directions. Kylix, IMHO, was an attempt by Borland
to further the use of Delphi by offering a strategic advantage to use it,
namely Windows and Linux (I wish Borland would have made such a decision
foru years ago, to have a Delphi that would cross compile to Windows, Unix,
and Mac). Since NET is the new MS direction, Kylix no longer makes sense. I
do not think Borland ever saw Kylix as becomming the de facto standard for
Linux based development, but did see a potential for marketshare gain for
Delphi. It probably would have worked, prior to NET.
BTW, I am always open to using X, if it will meet the requirments better.
All development should be approached that way.
This thread is really becoming off-topic now. The original poster asked
"Java or Delphi." All responses to the original poster, by me, attempted to
address that question. JQP comes along with misinformation and then the
threads grows to off-topic.
Quote
I don't understand this last sentence but I guess it was related or an
extension to what you said above to which I agreed with.

It does relate with what you agreed with <G>.
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

Ender wrote:
Quote
I'm use Java apps only as user and i found following disadvantages of Java
based apps.

1. Insufficient performance.
Unfounded claim, Ender. Insufficient for what? Scientific calculations
involving huge matrices? Well, in that case, use Fortran.
Quote
2. Memory requirements for VM.
Tunable parameter, thank you.
Quote
3. Common stability of application depends from implementation of VM.
Goody, is that a disadvantage to Kylix and/or Delphi? I submit that Delphi,
Kylix as well as Java is subject to the quality of the runtime, be it DLLs,
shared objects or JVM implementations.
Quote
4. Usage of not native GUI widgets.
That's nonsense. Swing uses native widgets in the end. If you want to use
non-native ones, no problem, if you want native ones, no problem.
Quote
Two bright examples:
1. Try to use oracle Java based stuff... you will wonder how corporation
that created such beautiful product as Oracle Server also created such low
quality slow and unstable java-based tools.
Yeah serious. Oracle 8i uses JDK1.1.8, now that is truely ancient. Oracle 9i
uses JDK1.3, more modern, true. The question is, is the instability of the
Java stuff in Oracle Java's fault or Oracle's fault. FWIW, I agree with the
fact that combining Oracle and Java looks like a plan but isn't. However,
that's not because Java is bad, it is because Java has nothing to do in a
database to begin with.
Quote
2. Any web site that use Java. If you don't own latest P4 with half
gigabyte memory just hear sounds of your HDD.
True, applets take a lot of time to load. The advantage is that they are
much more secure than let's say ActiveX controls <shudder>.
--
Ruurd
 

Re:Re: DElphi/Kylix Vs. Java ??

"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
[..]
Quote
I would agree with the above and I am not arguing that point. My point was
and is that there is no need to adopt a new platform and in that adoption
bastardizing the code base by using x number of languages.
??? You don't need to bastardize anything.
Imagine a scenario in which a system is written in C++ or Cobol and people
want to make it more modern.
It will surely take a lot less effort to migrate it incrementally rather
than having to change to one language.
Consider also the fact that the majority of existing Windows systems use
COM/DCOM and .Net preserves that investment by making it fully accessible to
the new code. So, once again, it depends on what your goal is: for all those
shops using a lot of Windows technologies or the parts of those large
enterprise systems written with Borland or Microsoft compilers, .Net is the
most economical way to change to something new (time and learning wise).
Quote
X language is not a need usually, for those changing frameworks (as I
stated
many times, I see how it helps in the short term, but in the long term,
you
wind up with a [source code/maintainence nightmare] mess). Why use more
than one NET or Java language for your code base, when it will buy you
little to nothing? It doesn't make long term strategic sense.
Beside the fact that X language is extremely common in Enterprise
development (and I know that for a fact), I can give you again a very simple
example of when this might be a need and better to have than not: imagine a
mixed system for LAN and WAN with a desktop front end and a web layer.
Developers of front ends are usually VB guys which would be much more
confortable using languages such as VB or Delphi. Back end guys are normally
C++ or C# guys which lay out the architecture and can understand both. By
having the *possibility* to use the language that best fits the particular
task, you're better off than with something that locks you in one language.
Point is that you have a *choice* and that is always better than not having
one.
Quote
[..] Why do we not see the
popularity of all of the other Java languages? Because it is not seen by
any IT firm, that I am aware of, as a good course of action.
Nonsense. Java has never been advertise or pushed as a cross platform
environment.
Sun and IBM push Java, not those variants. They are meaningless in
Enterprise development. Might be good for small shops, but you should know
what big companies go after.
[..]
Quote
The same will eventually happen with NET, I predict. C# will eventually
become the de facto standard for NET, not all of the other languages (and
yes, I know quite a few are using VB.NET now). You can argue with this if
you wish. I am not stating it as a factual basis, but rather an opinion,
based upon what has been and how industries have gone with the only other
widely accepted Managed Code environment.
Today's world looks entirely different from what you predict so I'll stick
to that.
Quote
No, but you asked why Delphi was not built using the JVM and instead went
for NET. My statement answered that question. It was pertaining to "no
market share to make it worthwhile."
The answer to that question is a different one: hard to do and competely
different GUI framework.
That is why it has been dropped. Refer to non-tech for more information.
Quote
Even if there were a Delphi for JVM, it would probably be used by only a
few
Delphi programmers, but it would never gain Enterprise acceptance for the
same reason none of the other 20 or so languages for the JVM have gained
acceptance in this sphere.
That I agree with and that is why it's pointless to point out the JVM could
technically host other languages.
The whole reality is that there's a clear lock in into one language. That
has pros and cons.
[..]
Quote
What issues does NET solve that cannot be solved with Java and/or C++?
What issues cannot be solved with assembler? It's not about WHAT but HOW and
you can see many things in the framework and the language which are a big
improvement on both Delphi and Java.
[..]
Quote
No one is saying that all code should be Java, C++, or NET. But the
strategy
to use another language and/or platform, should be a strategic one based
upon need and necessity, nor governed by preference or language/platform
religion.
Indeed but you certainly better off using languages on top of something that
is consistent rather than using something that is a hack to glue them all
(Corba or COM are examples for what, today, can only be considered an
inter-op hack compared to stuff present in .Net).
Quote
Most of our own new application development is Java based, but not all. We
use C++ a small minority of the time, because it is a better fit.
Wouldn't it be nice if you could semlessly access one object from another
environemt easily and having the support being part of both frameworks? I am
sure it would be. Learning how to interface in different ways depending on
the language is surely a cost and an hassle we'd all like to get rid of.
Quote
I have no
problem using Delphi for Windows only based programming either.
Right, but look at it from the Delphi perspective: I can share code with C#
easily. I cannot do it *that* easily with Java environments.
Why should I be forced to migrate all at once or put temporary glues which
half work and half not, when .Net offers a good answer and allows me to move
incrementally?
Quote
Kylix was
an option for Linux only programming, but I am afraid that option is not a
good one, due to Borland's recent decision not to support or upgrade it to
keep up with new Linux development and libraries.
Kylix has been dommed since day one. The LInux world is not interested in
investing in technology by spending money.
They have different priorities and goals (this doesn't mean they are bad.
Just different.).
[..] Since NET is the new MS direction, Kylix no longer makes sense. I
Quote
do not think Borland ever saw Kylix as becomming the de facto standard for
Linux based development, but did see a potential for marketshare gain for
Delphi. It probably would have worked, prior to NET.
You will be surprised ;-)
[..]
Quote
This thread is really becoming off-topic now. The original poster asked
"Java or Delphi." All responses to the original poster, by me, attempted
to
address that question. JQP comes along with misinformation and then the
threads grows to off-topic.
Actually you did shift JQP's words and twisted them a lot Paul...
Anyhow, nice chat. Have a good one.
--
Best regards,
Alessandro Federici
RemObjects Software, Inc.
www.remobjects.com