Board index » kylix » Re: K questions

Re: K questions


2004-01-08 12:20:40 AM
kylix2
Quote
>Introducing Mono/.Net means abandonning a true Pascal framework.

What do you mean by "a true Pascal framework" ?
I mean pascal-code components
Quote
There seems to be no language (created before c#) that is closer to .NET
than Delphi (because .NET/C# was strongly influenced by the guy who
designed Delphi for Borland and was hired by MS).
Yes but the whole components would be written in C#.
Quote
>IMO, if they go this road, they'll be too late because of Lazarus, and
>it
>will have been a waste of time and lost of market opportunity.
>

It would be GREAT if Lazarus would be an alternative creating native
code on Linux, if this is desired for whatever reason (e.g. for
low-resource embedded designs even if Delphi/MONO/Linux would work
perfectly together some day). But I fear it will still take a lot of
time until it's really usable.

-Michael
IMO, as soon as Lazarus IDE and RTL is stable, will see a lot of VCL
migration free or commercial. In fact a Delphi 2/3 equivalent would
perfectly sufficient.
On the opposite, I think that Mono will take time to provide cross
platform between Windows and Linux. Because not only they have to be
compatible with MS, but also .Net has to success on Windows...
Didier
 
 

Re:Re: K questions

"Didier Largange" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
On the opposite, I think that Mono will take time to provide cross
platform between Windows and Linux. Because not only they have to be
compatible with MS, but also .Net has to success on Windows...
Why is everyone so focused on MS compatibility for Mono?
I'm much more interested in compatibility across the various Linux distros,
kernel versions, GUIs, etc.. If I have to re-write a few things for Windows
compatibility, so what? As long as I don't have to continuously struggle to
support dozens of every changing versions and flavors of Linux.
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
"Didier Largange" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>On the opposite, I think that Mono will take time to provide cross
>platform between Windows and Linux. Because not only they have to be
>compatible with MS, but also .Net has to success on Windows...

Why is everyone so focused on MS compatibility for Mono?

I'm much more interested in compatibility across the various Linux
distros,
kernel versions, GUIs, etc.. If I have to re-write a few things for
Windows
compatibility, so what? As long as I don't have to continuously
struggle to
support dozens of every changing versions and flavors of Linux.
Then, why not stick with one of wxWindows/Qt/..., well may be not only for
GUI stuff.
But Mono will still need to be adopted by the community.
Didier
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
I'm much more interested in compatibility across the various Linux
distros,
kernel versions, GUIs, etc.. If I have to re-write a few things for
Windows
compatibility, so what? As long as I don't have to continuously struggle
to support dozens of every changing versions and flavors of Linux.
what compatibility on Linux ? My apps written with Kylix (Delphi) on RH 7.2
, works fine with all new distros ,different versions of postgresql, even
with new 2.6 kernel without changing of single line of code.
 

Re:Re: K questions

JQP wrote:
Quote
Why is everyone so focused on MS compatibility for Mono?
Because better compatibility mean better chances to run or port apps on
Linux. People hope to have retreat plan on Linux if they decide that
Microsoft want too much money, or Microsoft try to force something with
that DRM/DMCA and other pretty stupid things.
Quote
I'm much more interested in compatibility across the various Linux
distros, kernel versions, GUIs, etc.. If I have to re-write a few things
for Windows compatibility, so what? As long as I don't have to
continuously struggle to support dozens of every changing versions and
flavors of Linux.
CLR it is common base for application developer. As long it remain in stable
state, deployment will be easy comparing with current methods when only
compiling app under appropriate version of Linux can guarantee to you
ability to run it.
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
And, if Borland can't support any more Kylix, why they don't do as with
InterBase? To make it Open Source. There is many people who still care of
it.
I think they just waiting. They waiting results of Delphi 8 usage and Mono
development. If everything will be good, most likely they officially claim
about Kylix abandonment and offer to upgrade to D8.NET from Kylix. If
theirs plans with Delphi 8 apps on Linux fail maybe they try to update
Kylix.
From that point of view Kylix developers should benefit from D8 & Mono duet
failure.
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
Even today. About 50 years after the first
computers there are still applications where you have to use assembler.
Assembler and other platform dependent stuff (e.g. OS features one OS
offers and another does not). .NET provides several methods to solve
this (I have no idea how easy to use they are): non-managed code, call
to external non-.NET dlls etc. In most applications the "business
logic" and "standard GUI stuff" covers 100 % or at least most of the
source code. Same can rightfully be done in the .NET way.
Quote
1.) Commercial apps done in native windows code.
Especially with commercial "standard" applications the portability
argument ("Linux on the desktop") should be relevant.
Quote
- is so slow that simply does not allow you
to address many applications even if you try
to improve its performance with non native code.
Speed of Borland Delphi 8 IDE is sad proof of that.
I don't buy that on the first sight. The Delphi IDE is a very technical
thing and not business logic. There can be many reasons for it's
slowless.
Quote

- brings no real benefits to a large pool of
programmers and application users.

see 1.) (Though it's not yet granted that .Net really helps here.)
-Michael
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
>There seems to be no language (created before c#) that is closer to .NET
>than Delphi (because .NET/C# was strongly influenced by the guy who
>designed Delphi for Borland and was hired by MS).

Yes but the whole components would be written in C#.
And C# is Delphi in disguise: Delphi structures with C notation. I heard
that it's much easier to recode a Delphi program in C# than port a C++
program to C#.
Quote
IMO, as soon as Lazarus IDE and RTL is stable, will see a lot of VCL
migration free or commercial. In fact a Delphi 2/3 equivalent would
perfectly sufficient.
I still had not the time to take a personal look at Lazarus. But from
what I heard it's far from usable.
Quote

On the opposite, I think that Mono will take time to provide cross
platform between Windows and Linux. Because not only they have to be
compatible with MS, but also .Net has to success on Windows...

granted.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
I'm much more interested in compatibility across the various Linux distros,
kernel versions, GUIs, etc.. If I have to re-write a few things for Windows
compatibility, so what? As long as I don't have to continuously struggle to
support dozens of every changing versions and flavors of Linux.
You can't help there much anyway. If Mono does not provide this, your
users are out of luck.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
But Mono will still need to be adopted by the community.
The "Community" of course has problems with the .NET ways, as same
allows for close source distribution. Their answer to portability is
open source.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: K questions

"Michael Schnell" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
You can't help there much anyway. If Mono does not provide this, your
users are out of luck.
IMO, if Mono cannot or will not provide some semblance of cross-Linux
compatibility, then Linux is out of luck. Mono is the last chance for Linux
on the desktop.
 

Re:Re: K questions

"JQP" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
I'm much more interested in compatibility across the various Linux distros,
kernel versions, GUIs, etc.. If I have to re-write a few things for Windows
compatibility, so what? As long as I don't have to continuously struggle to
support dozens of every changing versions and flavors of Linux.

Why? You donít have to struggle, trolling require no subject knowledge or much effort.
 

Re:Re: K questions

Hi!
Quote
Assembler and other platform dependent stuff (e.g. OS features one OS
offers and another does not). .NET provides several methods to solve
this (I have no idea how easy to use they are): non-managed code, call
to external non-.NET dlls etc.
True but you need a native code compiler to have something non-managed
to call. An ideal tool would allow you to cover all three layers within the
same language and IDE.
Quote
In most applications the "business
logic" and "standard GUI stuff" covers 100 % or at least most of the
source code.
Most buissness applications. Delphi was and still is a general purpose
tool. Many people cant possibly imagine that there our worlds
out there bigger than the one they live in.
Quote
>1.) Commercial apps done in native windows code.

Especially with commercial "standard" applications the portability
argument ("Linux on the desktop") should be relevant.
Depends on the application. For some the Linux market is small
and speed is absolutely critical.
Quote
>- is so slow that simply does not allow you
>to address many applications even if you try
>to improve its performance with non native code.
>Speed of Borland Delphi 8 IDE is sad proof of that.

I don't buy that on the first sight. The Delphi IDE is a very technical
thing and not business logic. There can be many reasons for it's
slowless.
There is only one way to find out. Make an app with Delphi.NET.
Regards!
Atmapuri
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
Most buissness applications. Delphi was and still is a general purpose
tool. Many people cant possibly imagine that there our worlds
out there bigger than the one they live in.

We do many large "embedded" systems in Delphi. Same communicate with the
hardware attached via TCP/IP and small converter devices if necessary.
They use databases. A user interface is only needed for configuration,
but they can communicate with user-systems via TCP/IP.
I suppose there is no reason why these embedded systems can't be done
with fully managed .NET code.
-Michael
 

Re:Re: K questions

Quote
Mono is the last chance for Linux
on the desktop.
So Microsoft, having introduced .NET, is the driving force for Linux
<g>.
-Michael