Board index » kylix » Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?


2003-11-03 07:48:59 AM
kylix0
William Meyer wrote:
Quote
On 01-Nov-03, pNichols said:

>One of the problems with Kylix is that Borland has not kept up with
>the newer glibs, which means nerwer version support is behind for a
>year or more. Not an option in my stable <G>.

And that's one of the reasons that attempting to target Linux as a
platform is, at best, fraught with peril. A continuously moving and
never "standard" target with uncertain prospects for ROI... sounds a
disaster to me.

Why? Most companies keep up with the standards quite well (like QT, GTK,
KDevelop, Black Adder, etc). All it generally takes, is a recompile using
the new glibs to bring everything up to date. It would not be a monsterous
rask for Borland to do this, but Borland has not put much effort into Linux
in quite some time. It is not a good idea, however, for Borland to charge
for an upgrade, when they update the compiled code and CLX everytime a new
glib is released. Of course, there could be some compiler options that
Borland is using that may not require a simple make. That is why I wanted
(and Builder X does this), to be able to use alternate compilers in Kylix,
rather than the Borland native one.
This is generally why you find that many Unix/Linux code comes with a make
file. Simply run the make <mikefile>util, and the program will be compiled
with whatever gibs you are using.
 
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

tylerv wrote:
Quote

I considered Java for a medium-sized GUI project, here is what I
concluded; please feel free to correct me as I am no means a Java guru:

- For GUI toolkits, Swing is a bit bulky and IMHO, ugly; SWT however is
very nice and uses native platform widgets

I do not find Swing too bulky in the 1.4.x builds. Yes, it is much heavier
than SWT, however, Swing offers a more thorough approach, as you rightfully
stated,
SWT is getting more support however, and yes I agree with your evaluation
about Unix/Linux SWT installation. Basically, SWT requires either GTK or
Motif. If the user does not have Gnome installed, then the SWT would not
work if built for GTK. Another reason I use Swing.
BTW, I do not find Swing 1.4.x, ugly at all. There are several PL&F's
available for Swing, and if you do not like one, you can build your own.
Pre 1.4, the options were less, but 1.4.x has improved on the PL&F as well.
Anything less than 1.3, is a no go, IMHO.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Please. You know it, just like everyone else does, but just do not want to
admit it. Hey, I am not at all happy about it, and I wish I could change
the fact, but I can't. So Borland makes a dot net version of Delphi, and
drops native compilation. What is the point? Anyone doing windows
development will use VS.Net, bottom line, because dot net is the "future".
Hobbyist and fanatics will try to hang on, but they will be the first to
loose their jobs. At least that is how it is here in the states.
"Dave Nottage (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

I don't see at all why you say Delphi is dying.

--
Dave Nottage (TeamB)
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

WM>And that's one of the reasons that attempting to target Linux as a
WM>platform is, at best, fraught with peril. A continuously moving and
WM>never "standard" target with uncertain prospects for ROI... sounds a
WM>disaster to me.
I think Kylix - fine example how Linux perfectly protecting himself from
software that does not fit in it's ideology of open source.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Dave Nottage (TeamB) wrote:
Quote
pNichols wrote:

>(like QT, GTK, KDevelop, Black Adder, etc).

That comment illustrates Bill's point quite nicely.
So will BuilderX ever get into that list :)
I have always managed correct builds of libraries built with
BC5,Builder3/4/5&6 and Kylix2/3 so that I could go back to
any build and check on bug reports. I'm doing the same today
- using Eclipse. Code management should be integral in the
IDE, but is something Borland have always charged extra for!
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

DelphiCoder wrote:
Quote
I like Kylix. I admit I am new to Linux, and have a Delphi / C++ background.
So, I am sad to see Kylix is dead, and I wonder what I should use to develop
Linux applications in?

There is a possibility to combine existing Kylix code base with a
modern multiplatform QT 3 C++ development environment by Trolltech,
which provides a beautiful native Qt Designer, a fast widgets set as
well as tons of non-visual very powerful classes.It is the same
environment that is used in any modern Linux distribution for KDE so
you will always have the assurance that you are dealing with well
supported and always current environment.
One of the mentioned above non visual classes is Qlibrary() which
readily allows to load and execute shared library code (yes, converted
Kylix code to shared objects ). It means that a good portion of your
program functionality still can be written in Kylix and combined
with C++ QT. In other words it is an answer to a question "What to do
with all the accumulated Kylix/Delphi code base?" also it would
allow for anyone to extend the learning period of the new development
environment, therefore for a smooth and relatively painless transition
from ObjectPascal/Delphi to C++.
And yes, QT3 is truly multiplatform, so an application written for
Linux, if recompiled, will work on Windows and a pure c++ code on many
other platforms as well. Beside the fact that QT is always current
and well supported, one could get during the development period a free
access to source code and betas. The Qt license price appears to be a
little high, but it includes technical support and a free subsequent
version of Qt in one year period, so it seems like a bargain to me.
juliusz
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
Why? Most companies keep up with the standards quite well (like QT, GTK,
KDevelop, Black Adder, etc). All it generally takes, is a recompile using
the new glibs to bring everything up to date. It would not be a monsterous
rask for Borland to do this, but Borland has not put much effort into
Linux
in quite some time
Have you considered how many recompiles and different versions it would take
to cover 90% of the installed Linux base? The companies you mention "keep
up" by releasing the source code and allowing others (the end user, the
distro vendor, etc.) to shoulder most of the the burden.
This is the "compatibility" issue that I've harped on here before. It's
existed for decades and has been very effective at keeping *nix off the
desktop.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
I think Kylix - fine example how Linux perfectly protecting himself from
software that does not fit in it's ideology of open source.
Absolutely.
As a platform for *commercial* desktop software, Linux is a disaster. And
that's just the way that Open Source likes it.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Quote
On 11/01/03 09:08 +0900, DelphiCoder wrote:
>So, I am sad to see Kylix is dead,
Trane Francks wrote:
Isn't it a bit premature to sign a death certificate before the
patient stops breathing?
There is just nobody nearly to sign certificate... either medics busy with
other patients or they count that one as hopeless. :-)
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

JQP wrote:
Quote
"pNichols" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>Why? Most companies keep up with the standards quite well (like QT, GTK,
>KDevelop, Black Adder, etc). All it generally takes, is a recompile using
>the new glibs to bring everything up to date. It would not be a
>monsterous rask for Borland to do this, but Borland has not put much
>effort into
Linux
>in quite some time

Have you considered how many recompiles and different versions it would
take
to cover 90% of the installed Linux base? The companies you mention "keep
up" by releasing the source code and allowing others (the end user, the
distro vendor, etc.) to shoulder most of the the burden.
You do not seem to have installed Oracle then have you?
They provide object files which are then linked at install
time. Oracle seems to handle this far better that Borland.
B
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
www.ibrox.demon.co.uk/
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

JQP wrote:
Quote
"Ender" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
news: XXXX@XXXXX.COM ...
>I think Kylix - fine example how Linux perfectly protecting himself from
>software that does not fit in it's ideology of open source.

Absolutely.

As a platform for *commercial* desktop software, Linux is a disaster. And
that's just the way that Open Source likes it.
TROLL
--
www.mailtrap.org.uk/
www.ibrox.demon.co.uk/
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
You do not seem to have installed Oracle then have you?
They provide object files which are then linked at install
time. Oracle seems to handle this far better that Borland.
The way Oracle "handles it" is by supporting only limited number of distros:
otn.oracle.com/tech/linux/htdocs/ocfs_faq_031103.html
Quote
>>
Which Linux Distributions Are Certified With OCFS?
Currently Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS and SUSE SLES8 are certified.
<<<
This may be OK for server products but not for the general desktop.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

"Bob { Goddard }" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote

TROLL

Unfortunately, it is more TRUTH than TROLL.
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

Quote
Unfortunately, it is more TRUTH than TROLL.
No different to distributing on Microsoft then. How many
versions are needed now for backwards compatibility :)
I've just been told I can't download a demo, because I don't
have XP, and if I install XP I can't run some important
legacy stuff :(
At least with Linux I have been able to fix those problems!
 

Re:Re: So, what to use if Kylix is dead?

"Lester Caine" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
No different to distributing on Microsoft then. How many
versions are needed now for backwards compatibility :)
In our case, we only need one.
All our desktop software runs on everything from Win95 to XP. The only show
stopper I can think of at the moment is we require WinSock 2 which did not
ship with Win95. We test for it and tell the user where to download the
update if necessary.