Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Delphi for Linux 197

Posted by Hemos from the yet-more-ported-software dept.
Thanks to several readers who wrote to us with the news that Inprise apparently will be porting its Delphi development tool, and others to Linux. This comes on the heels of the recent survey of the Linux developer community.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Delphi for Linux More

Delphi for Linux

Comments Filter:
  • There is a good Pascal compiler for Linux. Compatible with Turbo Pascal 7.0 and some Delphi extensions. There are also GTK bindings available. It's called [kuleuven.ac.be]
    Free Pascal Compiler.
  • Posted by Synsthe:

    That's just silly, not everything has to be GPL to be good. You're living in a world where you just don't want to pay for anything, that's all. Get over it.

    Money makes the world go around, and it's not going away anytime soon. GPL and open source are not going to make it go away. Linux (and I'm not saying this is a good thing, but it's a true thing) needs more commercial support to make an even bigger path for itself in the long run, and such developments as this could be very, very good for that.

    If you don't want to use it, nobody is forcing you into it. When you're left behind playing your psx games and everybody else is out there making the big bucks working on the platform they like best, we'll try and remember you. =)

    --
    Mark Waterous (mark@projectlinux.org)
  • I do not agree with some of your assertions. Perhaps the Delphi code you have come across is bad, but that could simply mean you hang around with bad programmers.

    I find Delphi to be a very nice GUI IDE, and OP provides most of what C++ does, and some things it does not. Personally, I like Object Pascal (OP) better then C++. But that may be because I learned Turbo Pascal before I learned C, back in the bad old days of MS-DOS.

    You are right, in that the lack of C++ style templates is OP's biggest problem. However, the Delphi approach of making lists of TObject is not as bad as it seems. Delphi provides *much* better runtime type support then C++, so TObject is easily converted back to what it was.

    Additionally, this lets you compile your collection classes once, and also replace them using dynamic linking. C++ requires full source for everything, and templates must be compiled for each use. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. I hope Borland decides to put the choice in the hands of the designer, and adds templates to OP.

    Yes, Delphi uses exceptions a lot. This is because they are Delphi's error handling mechanism. Unlike C++, where it is anybody's guess how an error is reported, Delphi will *always* throw an exception. With this in mind, properly designed code is clean and *very* robust. Well done VCL code will recover from errors automatically.

    Yes, the IDE gives you a global variable for your forms by default. It does this to make it easier for the VB-weenies who are writting hobby code. I always delete the global declaration immediately. If you do not, well, what can I say, you are not a very good programmer.

    If you try to force C, C++, Eiffel, or some other language's mindset on Delphi, yes, you will get ugly code. But that is your fault, not the fault of Delphi. Since you snuck in a plug for Eiffel at the end, and are posting anonymously, I suspect you have an ulterior motive. In any event, I know Delphi to be a good system, and recommend that others developing for Windows (and soon, Linux) check it out.
  • an X client is a GUI, the server is not. GNOME and KDE are desktops, Yes, they are accessed by a GUI, but Netscape has a GUI too. The application (client) has a user interface that uses an X server to make it graphical.
  • Seriously. Sure, they can expand the market of C coders on Linux, but why would people who want GPL or free compilers switch?

    I will quite happily use C++ Builder myself, but then, I've got apps to write.

  • Exactly. There are a lot of Motif programmers out there. Motif has been around for what, better than ten years now? And the free Lesstif has most of it covered.

    True, Motif tends toward some ugly defaults (mostly in component spacing and apparent widget "thickness"), but these are easily overridden. There are even class libraries around to encapsulate Motif for the C++ hackers that really can't figure out how (or don't want to spend the time) to roll their own.

    Not to say that {Mo,Less}tif is perfect, but it's silly to ignore the talent pool that exists for it.
  • http://www.borland.com/about/hr/99083.html

    check that out. Official job opening.
    I had included this hard core evidence when I submitted the article, but Hemos didn't post it... I knew about it for a week but was too lazy :)

    Go Borland!
  • > Besides, if they chose Motif they'd have to licence it, adding it to the price of Delphi.

    Or use Lesstif [lesstif.org] instead. (Modulo licensing issues with that, since I believe Lesstif is GPL'd.)(Er, I just checked, and Lesstif is LGPL'd. No problem.) Which would be great if it helps improve Lesstif.
  • I do.
    Writing gui apps with VI is why so many X apps look like a 3yr old with a crayon layed them out.

    ---
    Joseph Foley
    InCert Software Corp.
  • You missed the most important letter in GUI, the *I*, as in INTERFACE. X doesn't have one without a window manager and/or shell. Joseph

    ---
    Joseph Foley
    InCert Software Corp.
  • Hmmm, this could be a different situation for Borland/Inprise (I have been a Borland supporter for some time now - I hated the name change). Will they support architectures other than x86? PowerPC? Alpha? MIPS? Burning questions...
    --
    "All that is visible must grow and extend itself into the realm of the invisible."
  • Delphi is not only a fine IDE, it is also a fine language. If it wern't for portability issues it would be my language of choice even for non gui apps. Free Pascal is getting close to being as good but not quite there yet.

    re: the toolkit
    They might do something similar to the way they did their database abstraction. That would let them use GTK+, Qt or whatever. This would let people pick which toolkit they want and possibly even change during devopment.

    I guess it's one way to do things, but I don't really like it. I like to know exactly how my app is going to look. Changing gui toolkits is a good way to make your app suffer from java ugly app syndrome. I'm not much of a themes person.

    I'd like to see something like GLUI, a gui toolkit written on top of GLUT. Then you can have apps that run identically on Linux win9x Os/2 BeOs etc.

    Don't think it'll happen though.
  • I don't think they will choose Qt, because you can't develop proprietary software with it unless you pay hefty licence fees. Not only would Borland have to pay up, but possibly also every Delphi developer. Unless they cut a deal with Troll Tech, of course.
  • I'm not surprised about Delphi being so far in the lead within the Linux community. With sites like the Delphi Super Page and Torry's Delphi Pages, many Delphi users create new components and distribute them openly (sometimes under the GPL) for others to use and, yep, modify.

    This is different from the VB community, who appear to follow the Microsoft philosophy. I have been aided by these "free" Delphi components and even applications, and I have also contributed back.

    As to those who criticize Delphi as not a "real language", I'd like an explanation. Many excellent applications have been written in Delphi/Pascal. What makes a "real language"?

  • Well, here is one data point that said,
    "is it important whether Inprise GPLs the source for Delphi or not", I voted, "Do not care".

    Do I care whether the source for Oracle is GPLd? No. Do I care whether the source for DB2 is GPLd? No. Do I care whether the source for Call To Power, for Linux, is GPLd? No.

    As long as the base is GPLd, we're all protected (as long as the base does not get marginalized, as MS Office for Linux could do, because you KNOW that it will only work with other MS Office for Linux/Windows, which you'll have to pay for).

    MSO2K says "we're using XML for our documents". Great. But most of the useful "features" are locked up in...ActiveX stuff.
  • Unless there's something other than X Windows, I'm not sure what this statement is referring to.
  • ...would have to be absolutely mind-blowingly incredible.

    (IMHO)Well, it is. I've used the C/c++ tools from Borland and had great success, going from all the way back to their original Turbo C compiler up through the C++ Builder, which is Borland's C++ version of Delphi. Remember, these tools have been going toe to toe with M$'s Visual toolsets for years, with a high percentage of developers preferring the Borland/Inprise tools.

    Within the realm of the C++ and the Delphi products, the real question is more which set of GUI components will be supported, i.e., Gnome, KDE, X, or perhaps a new set of components from Borland(?).

  • This world keeps getting better each day that passes ;))
  • Delphi is atleast a respectable tool, but I wonder how long it will take before Microsoft ports VB? VB is funny to work with... just cut and paste your apps together.
  • RAD is extremely useful. Being able to draw out the UI alone is wonderful. Java is an excellent example of this. Coding up the UI manually is really annoying (even the code is a lot cleaner than the code a GUI Builder Tool will generate). But they save SOOO much time. I spent perhaps 20 hours on UI code for a recent Java project. The entire rest of the project, including writing a user guide and documenting the code, took only 60 hours. Thats a long time to write a User Interface. If I had a good RAD tool at the time, I could have easily cut that time in half, and probably down to only 4 or 5 hours to get the same interface.
    Also, RAD goes much futher than just Ui development. Properly written delphi code is veyr easy to understand. For one reason, a lot of the code that you don't really care about (and is bug prone) you never write; I'm talking about code to set up screen controls, and getting backend stuff working. In Delphi, I just drop some components in, set some properties, and then make some event handlers to actually do the work. I can't think of anything sweeter than that. I never have to mess with the UI code (unless of course I want to for some reason) and setting up the backend (datasources, etc) is as easy as connecting a few components together. This is what RAD is all about. getting rid of the stuff you just don't need to worry about so you can get the product done quicker. I can't see many problems with this philosophy.
  • First, I'm not complaining. More big software for Linux is a Good Thing(tm).

    But wasn't the survey kind of wierd? I mean, I would never have expected Delphi to have *that* big of a demand...perhaps Borland rigged the survey?

    (Maybe I'm just completely wack here...I know my brain isn't 100% there....damn waking up early for classes ;-)
    --------------------------
  • Lazarus is a Delphi clone based on Free Pascal, a GPL'd multi-platform Pascal compiler already working under Linux x86, Win32, OS/2 etc. and compatible with Delphi 2. It is currently in alpha stage and under heavy development, a very nice open source project.

    Lazarus is aimed at working with different widget sets like GTK etc. Go to the homepage [miraclec.com].

  • YEAH!!! (Score:1)

    by KFK2 ( 23515 )
    Maybe I can get a deal with the Delphi 3 I have for Win9x.. And Finnally a programming tool for Linux where you don't have to hand code all the GUI Stuff.. =-)
  • Your link is just what I mean. No official anouncment, just a release of the survey results. I think people are engaging in wishful thinking at this point.

  • Yes! (Score:1)

    by Ticker ( 79929 )
    RAD for Linux means more applications. Means more acceptance. Means Linux takes over the world!
  • Then you make your choice, as is always true in an open market.

    No, your tone was not Gestapo, but the notion of anything which is not open source being pointless is cut from that cloth. If there is no room for commercial products to run on Linux, then there are many market sectors which will remain with Windows.

    My view is that all Linux-based applications benefit the furtherance of the OS, whether free or commercial.

    Delphi gives me freedom to code my apps without being a slave to the GUI. I like that. Also, at the levels that count (the components and rtl), Delphi ships source code (in Professional and above).

    Inprise/Borland has always had one of the best outlooks on licensing and on source access. To think that I might either debug or otherwise improve their compiler would be foolishly egotistical. But to have the source to the components protects me from obscure bugs interfering with my applications. The best of both worlds, for my money.
  • Yes! I was real heavy into Borland products and Delphi in specific before I morphed into my current state of Java developer. I few days ago I started up Delphi 3 and got that warm fuzzy feeling. Cool cool cool. I have to admit it's getting betta...getting betta all the time...
  • Agreed, in every particular. I spend a good deal of time exploring alternatives to MS OSes, because I am tired of the time I spend (even with Delphi) fighting undocumented features of the OS. I'm also tired of weird problems with kernel level services and/or drivers getting in my way.

    As to MS tools, I recently had occasion to explore VC (again.) It makes me appreciate even more how well designed a product Delphi is. The notion that anyone could consider VC a visual development environment is unbelievable. After spending 10 days on it I concluded I would rather go back to assembly coding on embedded processors.

    I have reservations about Linux, but 98% of them would diminish or disappear if I could use Delphi. My number one concern is the productivity hit I will take in making the transition to Linux.

    One of the best aspects, of course, is that most components shold come across with little or no change needed. Some will require change, such as the serial I/O component I use every day.

    I doubt that there are many Linux users who can comprehend what a sudden increase in the developer community will occur when Delphi for Linux ships.
  • I think it was referring to KDE, GNOME and the others Desktops out there.. If they do decided to support a few, I don't want to be charged a lot of money for each.. say a $25 would be enough for extra suport.. eg. you buy the KDE version, and then pay the $25 for the GNOME version, and your apps work seamesly.. then again If they all came in one that would be great
  • I read the anouncement at it-director. So where is the official announcement from Inprise? Anyone have a link to an 'offical' press release?
  • > ... they were existing Borland-on-Windows developers looking to develop for Linux! That
    > explains the toolkit confusion, etc.

    Yes, which makes these results even more significant. If 40% of existing Linux developers said OK to Inprise tools on Linux, then it would not be so significant a result. It would actually be a little ho-hum.

    The respondents here are mostly Windows developers who want to move to Linux and take their favourite tools with them. In this light, the numbers are far more telling.

    -M

  • Some code won't work. I find delphi bulid-in function is not enough, sometimes have to call win32 libraries directly.

  • Motif would be the obvious choice for a big corporate like Inprise/Borland, especially if they are dabbling in Unix for the first time. There are far more *experienced* Motif hackers out there that they could employ, and other big corporates would be keener to get a Motif capable Delphi on their proprietary Unices.

    The whole Unix world doesn't run Linux yet, and toolkits like GTK+ and Qt aren't as widely accepted in places like Hewlett Packard, Sun, etc as Motif.

    And finally, with judicial tweaking Motif applications can be made to look as pretty as GTK+ and Qt ones.

    Still run like a dog though ...

    Chris Wareham
  • This is good news for both newbies and experienced developers.

    There's an interesting article called "How Programmers Stole The Web [asktog.com] on Bruce Tognazzini's user interface site, Ask Tog [asktog.com]. One point it puts across is that when programming languages and environments were relatively simpler (he says in the '70's, I say in the '70s and '80s), there was an explosion in programming creativity as many people who'd never even touched a computer before were creating all kinds of interesting and even ground-breaking programs. Consider the spreadsheet, which Dan Bricklin cobbled together in BASIC, or MYST, created by the Robyn and Rand Miller using HyperCard. I've seen non-programmers write small (but often-used, even institutionalized) applications that met their own particular needs using HyperCard, Toolbook, FileMaker, Visual Basic, REALBasic and Director -- all without having to run to the local geek for anything more than a little help. In the article, Tog says that Pascal is as difficult as C, but anyone who's had to chase pointers or manage memory (or used Delphi) will probably disagree. The important thing is that the presence of a simpler (than C/C++) programming language couple with a simpler programming environment (no makefiles, no sepearate source/header files) should encourage similar development in Linux. I also think that giving people -- that means anyone, not just the code gurus -- the ability to "do it themselves" fits perfectly with the Linux philosophy. If a "serious" programmer is free to write a utility or driver if it meets some need, a non-geek should also be able to put together apps that meet their workaday needs.

    It's also good news for experienced developers. I work in tandem with a hard-core human interface guy, and what I usually do is hand him VB/Delphi forms and have him lay out the interface, after which I attach the code. Having someone who's actually concerned about the interface and giving him the ability to build it and see it all at once is a great timesaver for me (as I don't have to do it) and for the users (because someone's taking their workflow into consideration). Yes, we still always start off with pen and paper when designing, but giving a person with human interface skills (but not programming skills) the ability to build interfaces is efficient and benefits the users too.

    A library of ready-made interface and other components is also handy. VCL is so much nicer to deal with than MFC, and I think it'll be a considerable boon to Linux app developers. Yes, I like doing things for myself, but sometimes it's nice (and less expensive in terms of effort and debugging) when some stuff has already been done for you.

    However, the most important benefit of Delphi for Linux applies to both newbies and gurus -- RAD enviroments, simpler langauges and libraries like VCL let you have a life! I can't even begin to measure the value of such a feature.

  • Borland didn't rig it. The majority of respondents are Borland product users. What else would you expect? The survey was not intended or presented as anything other than a marketing tool for Borland. What it clearly showed is that among Borland tool users there is a great deal of interest in Borland tools for Linux. Quit griping: it means more growth for Linux.

    If Jave becomes the defacto tool for Linux, then the apps will suffer. But for those of us who champion Borland tools, it doesn't matter: we will use Delphi, and will be productive, and our users will enjoy performance benefits over Java-built apps.

    What gives you the idea that Object Pascal is "pseudo-object"? There are many ways of approaching OOP, and Delphi is as valid as any other, and more than some. At least it avoids the catastrophe called multiple-inheritance! Your comment smacks of ignorance of language.
  • Ethical cancer? In the USA? this is, in case it escaped your notice, a capitalistic country. Although some of Stallman's notions are excellent, the great difficulty with the Open Source movement is that it bids fair to become a fanatical cult.

    Your ignorance of Delphi is impressive. With the Professional package and above, you do get source to RTL and VCL. I sincerely doubt that anyone in the Linux community is at great risk of improving the core of the compiler, so that really is a non-issue.

    I have no idea what you're spouting with respect to "fictitious" things, but if you have any proof of your allegations, speak up. Otherwise you are merely trading in Microsoftian FUD.
  • VB is a RAD tool and Delphi is not entirely unlike it. In fact Delphi was written to compete with VB.

    Don't knock VB programming until you've tried it. Besides, there's lots of money for VB coders out there.
  • also, "hand-coding" promotes cleaner OO than the slap-everything-on-a-form-and-be-done-with-it attitude of Delphi. you simply cannot easily subclass, say, TPanel and stuff some widgets in and use it once, like you can with the gtk+, I think that's one reason why software written with Delphi generally is of lower quality than software written with what people would consider more spartan tools.

    Well, most people don't use RAD ("slap-it-on-a-form") tools for general-purpose applications building. Their typically used for two reasons: one is for prototyping applications that will later be rewritten in C/C++, and another is for mission-critical, specific use custom-built applications that need to be developed in a hurry. Tools like VB and Delphi are favorites of contract programmers, for instance.

    And glade is nowhere near the robust tool Delphi is. (Flames >/dev/null)



  • I hate it when people bash Delphi because it's not free or becuase its Pascal or whatever. Borland/Inprise are going to generate more Linux related jobs. Once some of the bashers enter the job market they will appreciate this.

    There are two main camps of people developing software for businesses. The VB/Backoffice losers and the Delphi Client-Server crowd. One just got a huge competitive advantage over the other because they can deliver a better, faster, more stable product with no OS licensing fees and Macro virus bullshit. If the market truly is free one of these is going to get trashed RSN.

    So with all these business apps running on Linux the demand for good Linux support people will go through the roof. And all these Linux support people are going to get paid to write little GPLed tools in gcc/perl etc that benefit the whole community. Delphi isn't a threat to Linux - it improves the job market and increases the size of the community.
  • I agree. While I run Linux at home, and I perfer coding under C/C++, at work I write custom DB applications in VB (with COM/DCOM Server backends written in C++) and I can say that while I am not a big fan of Basic as a language, I can get software out the door quicker, with fewer bugs under VB than if I was doing the front ends in C++.

    I think people need to look at what Delphi is targeted for, which is custom DB apps, which typically are not released on a Wide-spread basis. But if the ability to rapidly deploy custom apps under Linux is there, a lot of companies will be much more inclined to use Linux other than server only.

    You are not going to see apps such as Word Processors written in delphi I think.
  • You're living in a world where you just don't want to pay for anything, that's all. Get over it.
    Wait, Wait, Wait, I buy don't care if it is free of charge. As for calling me cheap thats a stupid insult, you don't even know who I am. I never said GPL is the equivilant of digital sweetness. I have seen rather sh**ty software in released in GPL, I have also seen some rather great software released in closed source.

    If it is a good product, GPL'd, and cost a reasonable price I would buy it. I'm insulted by the idea that you think I am cheap and only use software for free. I am just interested in having businesses sell open source software. I want the OSS paradigm to work in the commercial environment. I want when I buy hardware I can see the source, and use it and modify it as I see fit. I know GPL is not the only open source license on earth. I also know that many corporations cannot release source code yet because they may use APIs that are not open. This is understandible. Hell I will admit I use netscape although I cannot see the source. (I will on the other hand say I would be alot less buggy if programmers could see the source). Having all software free or commercial OSS is my ideal, I don't think society is ready for it yet. I just don't understand why I am taking so much slack for it.
    Money makes the world go around
    Money does not make the world go round gravity does. >=)
  • I'm not sure I agree that Linux needs a good Rapid Application Developement tool.. In my experience, all RAD gets you is quickly rolled out, badly implemented, non-source havin', bloated applications, that don't have a good design.

    If you try and develop an application for the here and now, for the short term.. you will end up with the mess Microsoft has. They needed an OS for the IBM PC... they bought a quick and dirty (RAD) hack called QDOS. Then they RAD'ed a GUI ontop of it called Windows, instead of going with a better design they were working on with IBM.. a little thing called OS/2... then they patched a 32-bit API ontop of DOS, and called that Windows 95... then patched thier patched Win32 API ontop of a VMS clone, and called that NT.

    But they did it rapidly didn't they?

  • You can bet your life there are a small bunch of techies under an NDA somewhere in Redmond, WA, working on that one right now. :)

    "Cake or death!" (E. Izzard)
  • "Joy!"
    - Stimpy

    I had forgotten about that! That's REALLY good news!

    --
    "All that is visible must grow and extend itself into the realm of the invisible."

  • How much do you bet they will not GPL the code. It is cool that Inprise was thoughtfull enough to code for Linux. It would be cooler if it is GPL'd. If they will not open the source then it is pointless. With a few exceptions like (PSX games, netscape, etc) I try to avoid using closed source programs.

  • Great! (Score:1)

    by Rotten ( 8785 )
    A RAD tool like Delphi will bring tons of new apps to Linux. I've worked for two big companies where the internal use software was developed with Delphi...If the compatibility is at source code level, many companies will have no excuse to use Linux internally. That's the desktops, yes, not server-side only. So...we will be one step closer to world domination.
    Really, a linux desktop would be a dream for tech support. Imagine having a generic installation for every department and not having to deal with regitery, slightly different ne200 cards with different win drivers. User profiles changing location, tighter security, flexible permisions for users...I can wait to see that!
    Because many computers at big companies just run 2 or 3 softwares every day. Many just run 1 (tel. assistance, accounting, word-processor...)

    Well, I hope to see that one day
  • If the Windows Share/Cripple-ware crowd thinks (which seems to be the case here) that this will somehow cause a demand for their crap to be ported over to linux, they are sadly mistaken. Quite frankly I don't think shareware has much of a future within Unix/Linux because most of it's programers (especally Windows programers) have given the concept such a bad rep over the years, so much so that I suspect most people interested in Unix/Linux want little or nothing to do with it anymore. Opera may be able to make the crossover, but the rest of that crap? Rather doubtful.
  • GUIs are intended to make life easier for end-users, who clearly are not at ease with the command line (else Windows would not currently own the market.) The immediate side-effect of the GUI on the programming side is to engulf the programmer in the details of constructing the visual interface. The notion that such an interface should be built in any way but with a visual editor is truly bizarre. And painful.

    Delphi combines a very highly productive IDE and visual toolset with a very capable language and compiler. Into the bargain, it introduces components which are arguably the first example of a successful software component. I do not count OCXs, which incur a large overhead, nor any sort of similar element in an interpreted language (sorry, Smalltalk.)

    Inprise/Borland, in committing to port to Linux, confer on the OS another level of credibility, and a crucial one, in my view: that Linux can be the foundation for commercial software success, as well as for the free stuff.

    As to those who froth at the mouth about the evil nature of commercial software, I fail to understand why having more choices is a bad thing. If I would rather pay for a good tool which I already know how to use, why should I be forced to use gcc instead? Free software is nice, but free choice is better.
  • Yes, it would be cool to have such a full featured development environment in Linux, but that's not the point.

    The point is to have a entirely cross 'platform' Windows/Linux development environment. Most of the people here do not seem all that interested in the cross platform benefits of this announcement - but a large percentage of the people who answered the survey were very interested in being able to port apps simply back and forth.

    -josh
  • Unlikely to happen. Not only because of MS anti-Linux stance, but also because COM/OLE components would be not a pretty hack on Linux (not that's impossible, Software AG already has something similar).

    Try QtEZ or KDevelop, if you can handle C++, otherwise look forward to KOM/OpenParts components, esp. with Python support.
  • All objects in Java are references (much like C pointers) but with the pointer semantics of C hidden. I know many people who claim you cannot code a binary tree, linked list, etc in Java because it lacks pointers. This is simply not true. Java's primitive types (int, float...) are, of course, not pointers.
  • VB sucks - it's not even a real language.. you can only do high-level crap, and it's a pain to use too.. Delphi is based on Pascal so you can do anything you could in Pascal (or C for that matter) so you can combine high-speed GUI and windows stuff with low-level "real" code if you have to (although i use C++ Builder for this now since i like C better than Pascal).
  • It's great news that Inprise has woken up to the OSS community and released a RAD language (which I think rocks :) for Linux. Way to go! If only other Windows-based companies would realise the reality of the Linux phonomenon.

    Just a minor couple of points though:

    • Will you be able to just recompile for Linux?
    • Will the Delphi IDE/Compiler be OSS?

    http://get.to/neuralabyss.software - Visit NeuralAbyss Software [get.to]
    - NeuralAbyss

    ~^~~~^~~~^~~~^~~~^~~~~^^^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Real programmers don't comment their code.

  • No, they still won't *officially* commit to Delphi on Linux. But they're not that far from it:

    At the official launch of Delphi 5 here in Finland last Thursday (Aug 19), when talking about the *next* version... the presenter twice did the old "I'm not really talking about CoughDelphiForLinuxCough" trick. (OK, actually it wasn't so much a "cough" as holding his hand before his mouth and mumbling it; I think he must have squeezed a nostril shut with his thumb too, because it sounded really nasal -- but that definitely was what he said.)

    I think they're pretty sure that this *IS* something they want to do.


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • With all due respect to Tog, I would say that Pascal is easier to learn than C in the beginning, but they both require diligence and commitment to master, and at that level, are probably on par.

    I think that Delphi is terrific at a number of levels. For the sometime programmer, it is a tool which will allow him or her to build apps which are reasonably clean, and to focus on the functionality, without having to strain to achieve an interface for the user. For the programmer who uses Delphi every day, it affords the ease of building a meaningful app in minutes, literally.

    The great visions Borland pursued are the VCL and the "two-way tools". Unlike MS with VC, there are no framing comments to signal a deficient file processor who owns what. I can modify any part of a file, or a form, and Delphi will make the correct determination. Can I do the wrong thing? Of course. If Delphi prevented that, it would be too restrictive in its access to system resources.

    There are a few tasks which Delphi cannot accomplish, or at least would be harder than with VC. Writing drivers is one. But really, how many of us can digest the horrendous MS docs on that topic, anyway? And how many of us really want to write drivers? Needing to write a driver implies that you have designed a new card for the PC, and the prolifieration of PCI (and the reduction in ISA slots) has made that ever less likely.

    People who claim that Object Pascal isn't up to "real programming" tasks have wrapped themselves in their ignorance.

    VCL is, IMHO, the most significant development in software in years.
  • Nice that there are such tools, but I am experienced in Delphi and would like to move some apps to Linux. As a practical matter, if I have to switch tools, I will be very slow to make such a move.
  • I would be perfectly pleased to see Borland port their own components. They cover all my basic needs, and I don't see any conflict with any of the formats in Qt/KDE.

    As far as GUI kits, I'm agnostic. I just want to be productive, and very soon after moving to Linux. Coding GUI by hand doesn't cut it, and never will.
  • Linux is anarchy; there is no industry. And Unix lost their franchise. What counts is a solid and easy to use interface. All the rest is for hobbyists.
  • PimpBot writes:

    "I would never have expected Delphi to have *that* big of a demand...perhaps Borland rigged the survey?"

    No they didn't.

    It's just that there's a *LOT* of Delphi developers in the world, who really really like their tool, and would want to see it on Linux (I'm one of them; see my user profile). And the survey was publicised on... surprise, surprise: Web sites about *Delphi*!

    Which is the logical thing to do, of course: Borland wanted to know if they could *sell* their tool. So the logical people to ask are those who already have proven they're willing to pay for it; existing Delphi developers. Come on, admit it: The /.ers who took the survey, most of whom OBVIOUSLY (judging from their comments in this and the other recent forum) wouldn't know Delphi from a hole in the ground, would -- *did*! -- just yell "if it isn't GPLd it's useless!" Sure, I'd love to see that too (and as soon as I have my Linux machine up and running again, I'll go to the Lazarus project and see if I can help out), but that's useless news to Borland -- they're a commercial company.

    So did you expect all of us to scream louder for JBuilder or C++ Builder than Delphi, or what? Well, there are several reasons why we didn't. Reason #1: Delphi, Object Pascal-based Delphi, is Borland's greatest seller -- not C++, not Java. Reason #2: There are already a lot of C/C++ and Java-based tools available on Linux, but nothing for us OP fans. Reason #3: With C++ Builder's VCL being identical to Delphi's, we *know* that porting Delphi is the key -- do that, and C++ Builder is a good as ported, too.

    There, hope your brain is "in whack" now; good luck with your classes, now that you are awake! :-)


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • First, I don't think KFK2's "Maybe I can get a deal with the Delphi 3 I have for Win9x" meant "Wow, maybe I can sell my Delphi / Windows CD to someone"; I think it meant "Maybe Borland will recognize it as a valid ground for quoting me an 'upgrade' price, not the full one, for Delphi / Linux".

    Second, what "all the computer magazines" have you seen D3 CDs on? Danish ones?!? Here in Finland, I've only ever seen Delphi 2 -- repeatedly, actually -- on *British* magazine _PC Plus_.

    (Yeah, D5 is officially out; the first official launch in Europe was here in Finland last Thursday, August 19.)


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • And how can you call it pointless? What a silly remark. There is much more to Linux than being "free."

    There's an oddly Gestapo flavored tone which arises in Linux circles when the mention is made of commercial software.

    If Linux must be a crusade, I'm staying home. If, on the other hand, Linux is a viable OS to be judged and used (or not) on its own merits, then I will probably use it. And I am far more likely to risk using it for commercial apps if I have a tool which makes me more productive. Delphi will.
  • I have a large investment in development which has been for Windows. As much as I look forward to moving apps to Linux, I dread the thought of being forced into C++. And I dread still further the thought of having to code for Linux as I would have before Delphi saved me from hard coding for the WinAPI.

    I will be shocked if Delphi for Linux makes cross-OS coding transparent. But if it makes it practical with compiler conditionals, I will be extremely pleased.

    Even more than the matter of cross-OS compatibility is the cross-OS components issue. If we are able to immediately make use of most, if not all, of our existing collection of components, then we, as developers, win big time.
  • Do you really know what's RAD?

    you quoted Windows 95, OS/2 and NT, and you thought they were written with RAD.... who says
    GUI are written by RAD?

    remember one thing: microsoft don't use delphi to write MS office.
  • Inprise helping the enemy, huh? Guess Redmond will be starting to forget to send Inprise their beta OSs and API docs ... Inprise dev tools will start mysteriously crashing on new OSs ...

    IBM, Lotus, Novell, et al. have all been there before ...

    Regards, Ralph.
  • Try again..

    You PAY for the commercial QT 2.0 (which is also available for Windows and can make life easier for them moving Delphi from Windows to Linux).

    They could easily include the runtime price in the total end user price..

    It might be interested to see if they will release a free version "for non commercial use" which will allow users (students, home users) to compile open source Delphi programs. I would call that - cool :)
  • >I predict that within the next year, Microsoft will announce similar >support for Linux with their major development products,

    Rather doubtful. In fact I just saw something over on LinuxToday saying Microsoft intends to inist that vendors must agree to tightly integrate their products with Microsoft's Visual Studio development suite of tools, which includes VisualBasic, Visual C++ and Visual J++. The article is entitled "CRN: Protecting Windows -- Microsoft launches developer program to counter competitors" and can be found here: http://linuxtoday.com/stories/9018.html. It can also be found here: http://www.techweb.com/se/directlink.cgi?CRN199908 16S0049
  • If Borland/Inprise do with Linux Delphi what they've done for Windows Delphi, part of it will be "free" -- specifically the VCL code. And, no, it's not just API calls either.

  • I agree with you that RAD development is not a substitute for design. But I do think that visual programming tools are particularly suited to gui development. It's very intuitive to move controls around and see what they look like.

    Also, there is definitely a place for tools to throw together throw-away apps quickly. Witness perl, python, and other scripting languages. Admittely, they can be misused, but would it be a better world if everyone was forced to use compiled languages for everything? I think the same thing applies with gui tools. People like Tk because it's quick to write for. RAD environments offer the same advantage.

    Having said all of that, I personally prefer writing C++/Qt apps with emacs.

    -----------------------------------------------
  • According to question 29 on the survey (All the development tools I/we currently use are...), 50.9% of people use Delphi. This in itself indicates that the results of the survey are not valid. Perhaps 50.9% of Borland users use Delphi???

    According to question 28 (The primary development tool I/we currently use is...), 39.9% of people primarily develop with Delphi, and 6.3% with Mickey$oft Visual C++. The expression that comes to mind is: "What a load of bollocks!"

    Ok, Q32 (My company's annual revenues are...): 37.9% of people who responded to the email are obviously hobbyists, students, unemployed people, dreamers, coders who work in their spare time, or people who live somewhere for free. If this were a survey of *real* working software engineers, then the results would be very different - you have to pay the bills somehow.

    Borland/Inprise: fix you bugs in JBuilder and port that before you lose the market to the other vendors who have already ported tools (e.g. IBM. Metrowerks). Port your C++ tool and give it to students to lock them into Borland and thus help keep them away from Microsoft. Then consider Delphi.

    Then again, the survey was supposed to be global. I've heard that Delphi use is greater outside of North America... but that much so???
  • And what software runs well and is bug free? None. I'd love to see how you'll get your proprietary little Delphi application to run on my PowerPC, or my Alpha, or my Sun, without source code.

    My personal opinion here is that if it doesn't have source code, it's not worth touching. It's just not useful to me.

  • Yawn (Score:1)

    by Lodro ( 77033 )
    ...
  • By that measure, svgalib is a GUI.

    Why is X a User Interface? It sounds much more like an API to me..

    Matthew.

  • Only if you don't know your toolkits. The editor you use will only affect the look of your program if you don't care about the graphical presentation. You can make beautiful applications with Emacs or vi and absolutely disgusting applications with VB or Delphi.
  • In the end, companies care about productivity in programming

    Although they have a funny way of showing it at times ...

    If you mean ease of GUI creation, then I have yet to see a GUI builder that comapres to some of the Motif ones. However, Kdevelop is shaping up nicely. Just a pity my knowledge of C++ is fairly bad, which means I find myself sticking to GTK+ and Motif, despite the enticing out-of-the-box Windows & Unix portability of Qt.


    Chris Wareham
  • PigleT writes:

    "Me, I hope that delphi becomes one way of doing gtk and qt stuff in pascal, rather than a *rival*."

    Oh, I'm fairly sure that that's exactly what Borland wants to do. They'd be stupid to invent a whole new GUI widget set, wouldn't they? Then they'd just have one more headache, developing and maintaining that. No, *two* -- the other would be, developers might be reluctant to use something that didn't automatically give their applications the same "look and feel" as what end-users are using already.


    "Would open source still be so cool if there were more that ran on windoze?"

    Hell yes! In fact, at http://www.torry.ru/ you'll find some components (plug-in stuff ready to use in the RAD IDE) that are already LGPL'd. The Delphi community -- yes, I think there *is* such a thing -- is actually among the most "Open" you'll find on Windows.

    (I think it's because using such a wonderful tool makes you much more happy, and happy people are much more likely to be sociable and generous. No wonder perhaps that Visual Basic code slaves, and the poor souls who have to wrestle with "Visual" [Ha!] C++ / The Abomination Known As MFC to give them their "components", are such grinches... ;-)


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • "What Borland can do is simply write the delphi compiler that transforms Objective Pascal into C, which can then be compiled through the gcc backend."

    Eh, 'simply'?!? What a horrible kludge!


    "I believe AT&T did this with their C++ compiler, but I could be mistakened."

    No, you're not mistaken; that's what they did.

    You may have noticed, though, that it isn't what they (C++ compiler vendors; dunno if AT&T has one any more) do nowadays.

    I think there is a reason for that.


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • "If the Windows Share/Cripple-ware crowd thinks (which seems to be the case here) that this will somehow cause a demand for their crap to be ported over to linux, they are sadly mistaken."

    So you think the license is built into the language; Delphi can only be used to build shareware?

    My, what a fuckwit you must be.


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • clawson (rhetorically) asks:

    "If you use MS-based tech (COM/DCOM, MFC, ADO, etc.) in Windows Delphi apps, how can you expect this to port to an environment that doesn't have these things?"

    Yup, that makes it hard.

    That may be one partial reason why many Delphi developers use as little as possible of that kind of stuff.

    Besides just in general wanting to do as little as possible to promote MS-proprietary "technologies", even on MS platforms, that is.


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • "I also hope they use the QT widget set, its object oriented and generally eaiser to program than GTK+"

    That's irrelevant.

    Whatever they implement Delphi on top of, that implementation *will* be the VCL [Delphi's class library, the Visual Component Library] "on top of" whatever it is.

    That's the whole point -- Delphi more or less *is* the VCL; the compiler is just incidental, needed to translate your VCL-using code (and the VCL itself) into machine language.

    So if QT is easy and GTK+ hard, or whatever, doesn't really matter to the *Delphi* coder -- Borland's people will get to wrestle with that, porting the VCL. (OK, that was an over-simplification, since one of the main points of Delphi is that you can also write your own components. But basically it's true.)

    One possibility, though, is that it would in fact be easier for them (and us, and third-party component developers) to use GTK+ if it is *less* "advanced" than QT; it's one thing to build on top of a low-level API, that can be tedious enough -- but implementing a higher-level class library on top of *another* high-level class library that "goes against the grain" of the one you're trying to build looks like it could be a real struggle.

    AFAICS, FWIW, etc.


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • "Delphi uses Borland's VCL library which wraps up most of the important elements of the Windows API, but not all of it. That was a concious design decision -- not to try and wrap everything [ . . . ] Because of that, many existing Delphi and C++Builder programs have some Windows API calls sprinkled in with their VCL code. [ . . . ] it won't be as easy as a recompile [ . . . ] even if as much as 20% of the code needed to be tweaked"

    Another issue is *where* that Win-API-calling code is located.

    If it is in your project itself, then you have work to do -- but then you've bungled on re-use and all those OO benefits already...

    If you isolate it in an IDE-installable component, you'll only have to port that once, and as long as the interface is the same, your project code is then freely movable.

    For instance, I've bungled like this myself in one current project: I override the Create and CreateParams methods in some of my forms to make them appear as part of another form, the code is taken directly from Charlie Calvert's "RitcheyForm" in _Delphi 2 Unleashed_. But the new "Frames" in Delphi 5 seem to be exactly the same code wrapped up in a component/form type -- port those to Delphi/Linux (which no doubt Borland will do), and all I'd have to do was use those in stead of my own semi-kludge and I'd be done.

    The issue of API code hindering portability will be a problem mainly for in-house and third-party *component* developers, not *application* developers, I think.


    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.

  • You PAY for the commercial QT 2.0 (which is also available for Windows and can make life easier for them moving Delphi from Windows to Linux).

    They could easily include the runtime price in the total end user price..

    Er... have you seen the Qt prices [troll.no]? A single-developer licence for Qt is $1550, for one platform only. I'm sure Delphi sells for a lot less than that.

    And there is no 'runtime price' - the price is per developer only.

  • this is Linux at the end of the 90s, not proprietary Unix 8 years ago. Motif is clearly on the way out, and it wouldnt be very smart for Inprise to use it. GTK or Qt, or even better both. or why not wxWindows.
  • I'm happy for you. However some of us don't care if the source code is available as long as it runs well and is bug free.
  • As others have pointed out, this is big news indeed, and critical to the future success of Linux.

    Although this is often overlooked, especially by mainstream press, and was certainly missed by 'bad-old-days' Apple execs, the thing that really killed the Mac in business settings was not a lack of productivity apps, cost or bad marketing. It was the lack of a decent RAD environment. Not having tools that allowed you to easily create crossplatform frontends to corporate databases [so 4D doesn't count here] left the Mac in a ghetto for corporate creative professionals, scientists, etc.. [PowerBuilder was too little to late, and just took too many resources.] When standarization really took hold in the mid 90s, it was no wonder that Macs around the country got the boot. Its too bad Delphi was never made available for the Mac. (IIRC, Phillip Kahn hated the Macintosh, Bedrock notwithstanding, or perhaps withstanding!)

    It's a fact: more than productivity apps, email, or anything else, corporate machines live and breath on custom database applications. And even with new models like distributed objects, etc.., don't expect mainline 4GL tools to go away _anytime_ soon.

    I'm now one of those rah-rah Java distributed objects guys myself. But though I don't use Delphi (don't do much RDBMS development at all anymore), having it available for Linux is just the ticket, and is just as imporant as having a good office suite. This is good news for Borland, who will have the _only_ mainstream object-based RAD 4GL tool that will run on both Wintel and Linux. It is great news for Linux, and might be a significant milestone for an end to Wintel hegemony.

    Bravo Borland!
  • Do you have any evidence for this claim? Or is it just libel?

    I guess it's convenient your anonymous.

    ----------------------------------------------
  • The Borland poll specifically referred to Linux; as such, they seem more interested in porting to Linux than to one of the commercial unices. Motif is no standard on Linux, given that the only way to distribute binaries ordinary Linux users can use is to statically link them, and having a tool that leaves lots of redundant Motif crud in one's binaries wouldn't look good.

    Besides, if they chose Motif they'd have to licence it, adding it to the price of Delphi. For that, they may as well use Qt (one of the most programmer-friendly toolkits I have seen).
  • The one thing that's kept me from embracing Linux as my main OS has been that I get paid for writing Windoze apps. Being able to write in Delphi, a tool I find to enhance my productivity greatly, and then simply to do a recompile from Linux to Windoze would allow me to embrace Linux full time.

    I'm sure I'm not alone, and I'm sure that I'm not the only Delphi developer who has used the Borland tools out of a disdain for using anything by Microsoft.

    From my perspective, a port of Delphi to Linux, whatever GUI(s) might be supported, could easily bring a LOT of desktops into the Linux world - a LOT of Delphi work is in building internal applications for businesses.....and it wouldn't be at ALL hard to write a component set to support MySql databases, or even PHP scripting.....
  • I agree with those who have said that the survey was definitely biased. It wasn't really made all that public to the Linux community. For the most part, only existing Borland developers who would have browsed to the Borland site to notice that the survey was there would have taken it.

    But whatever... I coded in Turbo/Object Pascal/Delphi for about 14 years before dropping Windows completely about 6 months ago, so it will be refreshing to see Delphi for Linux. If it supports QT, I'm all over it.

    Borland would have found breaking established GCC development methods to be nearly impossible in releasing C++Builder for Linux, and so it would have made very little sense to reinvent the wheel.

    BTW, how soon will we see those JBuilder Slowassis and Linux ports?
  • Two syllables: Amen!

    Now let's get back to delphi on Linux, okay? :-)

    Gtx,
    Emiel (aka CoolVibe)
  • I think it would be pointless for me to use at least. My number one reason for using Linux is because it is free (with respect to most of its code). Many people who will use Delphi for *nix programming will develop open source programs. I just think that if you develop open source software you should develop on an open source coding environment. It is just my preference. Did you ever use a program that you believed could be improved, but was limited by closed source policy? The way things are going it is going to be illegal to reverse engineer code, and fix others mistakes. That means if you fix a company's code and increase productivity it is illegal. I don't like that.

    I don't think I used a Gestapo tone, I just voiced my concerns with developing closed source programs in Linux. We need to prove to corporations that OSS is viable and profitable. Many programmers understand this but many more short-sided managers don't. If closed source programs do very well in Linux, companies will not have much of an incentive to develop OSS software. When Corel developed in linux I praised it as company willing to develop for an OSS platform. When I realised it did not release its code I deleted it and I never looked back. I would never force anybody to do the same. I just like freedom, using closed source programs in the name of productivity, is like sacrificing freedom of speech in the name of national security. It may be a noble cause initially but sooner or later it will be abused.

  • My guess is that they are talking about KDE and GNOME - they probably just don't quite understand the way which KDE and GNOME interacts with X.

    Anyway, it's great news - Delphi is imho a really great tool.
  • Delphi is Borland's number 1 product. If you look at some of the graphs, you see that easily over 50% of the people responding to the survey were already Delphi developers. Delphi is amazingly popular. It's basically their flagship development product. I am not surprised by the results.
  • Although I loathe Pascal, even in it's objectified Delphi version, I've got to say that this great news. At companies I've worked at with Windows programmers, they all sang the virtues of Delphi. Even hardened C++ and Visual Basic programmers loved it.

    If the API's are going to be similar (I assume some wrapper around Motif and the Unix libraries) to the Windows version then we could see some interesting cross-pollination of ideas.

    I haven't read the article yet to see if they're also porting C++ Builder, but I suppose Unix already has great C/C++ development tools.

    Chris Wareham
  • I assume they're talking about GNOME/GTK, or KDE/QT. It would be a *huge* coup for either project to have Inprise use their toolkit instead of using the old Motif copout.
  • I can assure you that the survey was not rigged.

    Since I do Delphi development myself, I know how big the Delphi community out there is. And everyone has been clamouring for Delphi for Linux for at least 18 months.

    So... your call :)

    Regards

    Andromeda
  • Now If they do release Delphi, how will this affect open source Stuff, I think that if a lot of people start programming in Delphi without releasing the source, Linux will turn out like WinBlows(tm), with all the programmers making there own apps cause they don't like one feature and can't change it, or don't like the fact that they have to pay after like 30 days.. I know that having more then one thing gives a choice, but having 200+ to chose from is really hard.. Maybe they can sell the RAD..and maybe for like $5-50, sell a complier. I know this sounds weird, but most people will buy it cause of the RAD and not the compiler, but this would be a great thing for Linux, The open source, and RAD.

    Enough ranting..
    Kenny

  • They probably talk about Toolkit or Desktop environment. Basically it is Gtk[/GNOME] vs Qt[/KDE] vs Motif vs Athena vs their own toolkit.

    X11 is just a windowed display system, not a GUI. But GUI on UN*X depends on X11 (or OpenWindows on old SunOSes).

  • Someone said "now I don't have to code the GUI by hand." I just wanted to point out that there are already free tools available that help in that regard. There is QtEZ, a very basic GUI builder for Qt development, and KDevelop [kdevelop.org], a GUI buider and IDE for KDE.

    --
    Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page [slappy.org]
  • > X is *NOT* a GUI!!!
    > read: man X


    DESCRIPTION
    X Window System servers run on computers with bitmap displays
    ...
    X supports overlapping hierarchical subwindows and text and graphics operations, on both monochrome and color displays.


    And so on. For not being a GUI it sure seems to have a lot of blits, rectangles, lines, cursors, fonts, and colors wired right in. Oh yeah there's this X protocol thing which is useful for other things but is rarely used for it.

    Can you dispense with the frothing at the mouth now?
  • > 50.9% of people use Delphi.

    The pool didn't show that. It showed that 50.9% of the people who answered the pool use Delphi (or are liars).

    What Borland (Inprise) can use the pool for, is

    1) Get a vague idea of the interest from the absolute numbers.

    2) Get an idea of what those people who are interested in both Borland and Linux would like to see most. These will be their "easiest" customers, so that is quite significant.

    Porting Delphi first seems like the brigtest move for Borland. They have a lot of existing customers using that, and unlike Java and C++ they are the only provider.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Close