opendelphi.org

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
47 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

opendelphi.org

Bee-6
http://delphi.org/

Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at
http://beeography.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Graeme Geldenhuys-2
I fully agree!!!

Regards,
  - Graeme -



On 3/15/06, Bisma Jayadi <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://delphi.org/
>
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
>
> -Bee-
>
> has Bee.ography at
> http://beeography.wordpress.com
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Bee-6
In reply to this post by Bee-6
 > http://delphi.org/

Sorry... stupid mistypo. :P It should be:

http://opendelphi.org/

:D

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at
http://beeography.wordpress.com


Bisma Jayadi wrote:
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
>
> -Bee-
>
> has Bee.ography at
> http://beeography.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by Bee-6
> http://delphi.org/
>
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p

And totally unrealistic.

- price is way to low (50 times that is more reasonable I think)
- not just the source is not for sale, but the whole division.

They try a Blender copycat, but Borland is a bit heavier. Way heavier.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Matt Emson
In reply to this post by Bee-6
> http://delphi.org/
>
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p

You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alone, and the VCL (full VCL), and
defacto support for all (not just a subset) of Delphi features. Delphi
2006 for Win32 also incorperates a lot of the innovations nade in
Delphi.Net.

I'm sure Lazerus is a fine IDE, but it is not on a par with BDS.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Rodrigo Palhano
What he meant is that supporting fpc/lazarus development
is a quite more tangible task than trying to buy and support delphi.

On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:54:38 -0300, memsom <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> http://delphi.org/
>>
>> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
>> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that?  
>> :p
>
> You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix,  
> but
> not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alone, and the VCL (full VCL), and
> defacto support for all (not just a subset) of Delphi features. Delphi
> 2006 for Win32 also incorperates a lot of the innovations nade in
> Delphi.Net.
>
> I'm sure Lazerus is a fine IDE, but it is not on a par with BDS.
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>



--
Rodrigo Palhano
---------------------------------
Equipe SpeedCASE

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Florian Klämpfl
In reply to this post by Matt Emson
memsom wrote:

>> http://delphi.org/
>>
>> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
>> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
>
> You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
> not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alone, and the VCL (full VCL), and
> defacto support for all (not just a subset) of Delphi features. Delphi
> 2006 for Win32 also incorperates a lot of the innovations nade in
> Delphi.Net.
>
> I'm sure Lazerus is a fine IDE, but it is not on a par with BDS.

That depends on the POV. Lazarus has a lot of things Delphi/BDS doesn't have
like multiplatform support and a good optimizing compiler etc, so you can also
easily say BDS isn't on a par with FPC/Lazarus :)
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by Matt Emson
> > http://delphi.org/
> >
> > Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> > Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
>
> You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
> not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alone, and the VCL (full VCL), and
> defacto support for all (not just a subset) of Delphi features

However only the time to get anything building of that codebase is probably
a horrible task. It is written to be operated by an horde of fulltime
programmers + QA department.

The whole idea that OSS programmers can take over this is IMHO nuts.
Specially now the number of serious delphi devels are dwindling, and since
they always had a no-nonsense mentality.

See how many devels FPC has. That is the same magnitude you can get for Open
Delphi. At best, and part-time. And these are battle hardened veterans for a
decade and longer. A newly formed OSS team would take at least 1,2 years to
even do a maintainance release, at besxt.

See e.g. how long it took for Mozilla to become releaseworthy.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
In reply to this post by Matt Emson
> You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
> not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alone, and the VCL (full VCL), and
> defacto support for all (not just a subset) of Delphi features.

The idea is that it´s much, much cheapier to invest on Lazarus and
Free Pascal and pay people to implement the missing functionality you
need then to buy the whole IDE division of Borland.

thanks,
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

L505
Who gets the $22,000 they have raised so far, if their plan doesn't work out?
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Mark Andrews-3
They haven't raised any money yet. The money will only be collected if
Borland were to accept an offer from these folks. The amount so far is
more akin to pledges.

Mark

L505 wrote:

>Who gets the $22,000 they have raised so far, if their plan doesn't work out?
>
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
In reply to this post by Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
With 22.000 dolares we could have, in less then a year:

* PalmOS support for Free Pascal and Lazarus

* A great Carbon widgetset

* Perhaps even full COM and OLE support

--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OpenDelphi.org

"Gökhan" Ersumer
In reply to this post by Bee-6


--- [hidden email] wrote:

> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:19:36 +0700
> From: Bisma Jayadi <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [fpc-pascal] opendelphi.org
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
>
> http://delphi.org/
>
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting
> their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus
> instead of doing that? :p
>
> -Bee-
>
> has Bee.ography at
> http://beeography.wordpress.com
>

FPC is Ok but a few years ago I examined Lazarus
codebase and I saw Lazarus is hacking Class parents
on-the-fly for its normal operations so I immediately
lost my interest.
Is this changed recently?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com 
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: OpenDelphi.org

L505

> FPC is Ok but a few years ago I examined Lazarus
> codebase and I saw Lazarus is hacking Class parents
> on-the-fly for its normal operations so I immediately
> lost my interest.
> Is this changed recently?

What do you mean hacking class parents? What I noticed was tons and tons of
abstraction and tons and tons of layering. So much layering that when I try to
find a bug, I go into the code and start chasing hundreds of units looking for
the real piece of code where the bug exists, but since there are so many
snippets that inherit from other snippets and objects, you don't really know
where to begin.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: OpenDelphi.org

Mattias Gaertner
In reply to this post by "Gökhan" Ersumer
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:57:23 -0800 (PST)

>
>
> --- [hidden email] wrote:
>
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 20:19:36 +0700
> > From: Bisma Jayadi <[hidden email]>
> > Subject: [fpc-pascal] opendelphi.org
> > To: [hidden email]
> > Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> > format=flowed
> >
> > http://delphi.org/
> >
> > Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting
> > their time. :p
> > Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus
> > instead of doing that? :p
> >
> > -Bee-
> >
> > has Bee.ography at
> > http://beeography.wordpress.com
> >
>
> FPC is Ok but a few years ago I examined Lazarus
> codebase and I saw Lazarus is hacking Class parents
> on-the-fly for its normal operations so I immediately
> lost my interest.
> Is this changed recently?

If you mean creating the VMT at runtime, then the answer is: yes, it still
does.
What are the alternatives?


Mattias
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Bee-6
In reply to this post by Matt Emson
> Delphi 2006 for Win32 also incorperates a lot of the innovations nade in
> Delphi.Net.

.Net? Though I had suggested FPC to also implement some new Delphi language
features which I think very usefull, but I agree with FPC core team that we
don't need to support .Net yet.

IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers and
prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking technically, I saw nothing
new in the .Net technology. It's just a combination of Java (on the system
architecture) and Delphi technology (on the system language), with extra
resource requirements as the consequences. :p

And if we study the FPC compiler architecture, IMO it's very possible to support
.Net. Adding .Net assembly generator on the FPC assembler generator layer would
make FPC able to produce .Net executable. CMIIW. But, I think we don't need to
do this now. :D

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at
http://beeography.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Florian Klämpfl
Bisma Jayadi wrote:

>> Delphi 2006 for Win32 also incorperates a lot of the innovations nade in
>> Delphi.Net.
>
> .Net? Though I had suggested FPC to also implement some new Delphi
> language features which I think very usefull, but I agree with FPC core
> team that we don't need to support .Net yet.
>
> IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
> and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking technically, I
> saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a combination of Java
> (on the system architecture) and Delphi technology (on the system
> language), with extra resource requirements as the consequences. :p
>
> And if we study the FPC compiler architecture, IMO it's very possible to
> support .Net. Adding .Net assembly generator on the FPC assembler
> generator layer would make FPC able to produce .Net executable. CMIIW.
> But, I think we don't need to do this now. :D

That's exactly the point. If .Net really gets important, we can easily make a
.Net back end. But for now we won't support M$'s bs bingo. However, as long as
MS Office isn't written in .Net I see no need to do see even if M$ tries
permanently to tell people this is a different story :)))
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Vinzent Höfler
In reply to this post by Bee-6
On Thursday 16 March 2006 04:17, Bisma Jayadi wrote:

> IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
> and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking
> technically, I saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a
> combination of Java (on the system architecture) and Delphi
> technology (on the system language), with extra resource requirements
> as the consequences. :p

Frankly, all that stuff is still early 80s technology at best. Back then
they just hadn't the computing power to actually do it.

Information technology hasn't changed too much since then. They just
invented a lot of new TLAs[0]. The only question is who has the better
sales people hired.


Vinzent.

[0] TLA: Three Letter Acronym.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Marco van de Voort
> On Thursday 16 March 2006 04:17, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
>
> > IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
> > and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking
> > technically, I saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a
> > combination of Java (on the system architecture) and Delphi
> > technology (on the system language), with extra resource requirements
> > as the consequences. :p
>
> Frankly, all that stuff is still early 80s technology at best. Back then
> they just hadn't the computing power to actually do it.
>
> Information technology hasn't changed too much since then. They just
> invented a lot of new TLAs[0]. The only question is who has the better
> sales people hired.

While I'm not a .NET lover  (I wrote the FPC section on .NET), but while
we all know that .NET is at best M$'s copy of Java, that doesn't mean that
.NET is not a danger:

- it is reasonably well implemented and integrated.
- the framework is huge. This is more important than it seems. Less
        components to buy, more people using a standarised set of
        components. It has its attraction.
- Managers still believe in managed languages, and might for some time to
come
- training and sales
        - About each and other shrinkwrap development tools vendor is dead or nearly
                dead.  The few left are into .NET and M$ can easily keep
                them at arms length technically forever
        - Microsoft can also keep them at arms length on price forever
                 (with VS being coveniently priced
              at 3/4 of the corresponding but poorer Delphi version) forever
        - Microsoft hardly has to do sales anyway. As OS and Office vendor
          it already has a foot in the door. Strategic developers and
  educational  institutions are given licenses often near free
        - Also the massive MS training operations automatically generate
          MS developer tools sales.

IMHO it is less .NET itself, but the alarming conversion rates of businesses
to MS tools (and that is often not a technical choice).

(Oh, and the fact that memory prices have sunk much lately also doesn't
propel my enthusiasm for .NET)

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: opendelphi.org

Adriaan van Os-2
In reply to this post by Vinzent Höfler
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:

> Bisma Jayadi wrote:
>
>> IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
>> and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking
>> technically, I saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a
>> combination of Java (on the system architecture) and Delphi
>> technology (on the system language), with extra resource requirements
>> as the consequences. :p
>
> Frankly, all that stuff is still early 80s technology at best. Back
> then
> they just hadn't the computing power to actually do it.
>
> Information technology hasn't changed too much since then. They just
> invented a lot of new TLAs[0]. The only question is who has the better
> sales people hired.

 From slashdot <http://it.slashdot.org/it/06/03/16/0015253.shtml>

In a classic example of "Do as I say, not as I do", Richard Grimes
analyses the ratio of native to managed code in Microsoft's upcoming
Vista Operating System. According to the analysis at Microsoft Vista
and .NET, "Microsoft appears to have concentrated their development
effort in Vista on native code development. Vista has no services
implemented in .NET and Windows Explorer does not host the runtime,
which means that the Vista desktop shell is not based on the .NET
runtime. The only conclusion that can be made from these results is
that between PDC 2003 and the release of Vista Beta 1 Microsoft has
decided that it is better to use native code for the operating system,
than to use the .NET framework."

Regards,

Adriaan van Os

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
123