Borland Kylix Released - Kinda 199
red_crayon writes: "Borland's kylix -- their port of Delphi (née Borland Pascal),
and, coming later, Borland C++ Builder -- is out.
See Borland's Kylix Web site for more details.
This has been discussed on Slashdot in the past, but it is good
to see that it is finally out.
A kylix is an ancient Greek two-handled drinking cup. Hence,
they keep the Greek theme started with Delphi. And
the two handles are meant to be (???) some sort of symbolism
WRT Win and Linux co-development." It's $999, and this round is actually "pre-order" rather than shipping -- but people have been waiting for this.
Re:open minds (Score:1)
Re:Fuck, I'm gonna buy me 10 of these... (Score:1)
Compilers are OLD technology anyway... (Score:1)
I mean, compilers still have their place (in a museum of history ;-) but all serious development these days is done on interpreted platforms. The suits realise that the true cost of development is high, and they cannot afford to have their geeks sitting around waiting for their code to compile and link.
Re:I love Borland. (turbovision) (Score:1)
Re:I love Borland. OWL, vs MFC. (Score:2)
Re:everybody do your homework (Score:1)
I wrote the devleopment tools for the CyberKNEX
toys (http://www.cyberknex.com) using gcc (under
BeOS incidently). When I 'ported' the code to Windows to add a gui with C++Builder, I had to
change one or two of abou 20000 lines of code. Not a single problem with STL, templates or RTTI.
Jon
Re:Are you sure about Qt? (Score:1)
Re:How this could have a negative effect (Score:2)
Seriously, people are into open source for different reasons. Some like the philosophy of everything being guaranteed free(dom) for the duration of copyright law. Some like the safety provided by being able to audit the source code. Some like the opportunity to fiddle around with cool programs. Some just like freebies. Chaos theory shows us that any system that lacks diversity is doomed to instability. The prevalance of Win/Outlook demonstrated this with Melissa et al. Viva diversity.
Re:Compilers are OLD technology anyway... (Score:1)
Re:x86 only (Score:1)
Which is not now - C++ is still to go. When is software ever finished anyway?
> Shame though the IDE uses Winelibs
Oh does it? Can you give a reference on that, as this is the first I've heared about it & i've been following Kylix.
Fuck, I'm gonna buy me 10 of these... (Score:2)
My company develops applications for the corporate market, and the chance to move my code from the steaming heap of shit that is Windows NT, to a nice stable OS is just making me wet my pants here.
$1,999 is CHEAP, I don't care if I can't write GPL software with it, 'cos we don't sell GPL software to our customers. We do get to dictate hardware and OS, and I can see our support burden dropping hugely when we start using Debian as a server platform instead of NT.
Realise that this product is not necessarily targetted at your average OSS developer, but rather at corporate software development houses that want to support Linux platforms. This is good news, any way you play it. And given Borland's history of actually 'getting it', I'm sure you'll soon see a version available cheap (or free!) that the FSF will be 100% happy with.
Just because it's not libre and gratis doesn't mean it sucks.
Re:Well I don't Re:I agree (Score:1)
CLX is GPL, byt Kylix isn't... (Score:2)
"But Kylix is free", you say. The problem is, I don't have the source to Kylix, so I don't know if someone has inserted a back door into it. If I can take the source to the compiler and compile it with a different compiler, then I can be pretty sure that the backdoor will be stripped out. After all, they put a backdoor in Interbase, why should we trust Kylix?
Re:US Release Only? WTF? (Score:1)
Neé Borland Pascal? no way. (Score:1)
Re:How this could have a negative effect (Score:1)
I agree (Score:1)
Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects--such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline--in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them.
Digital information technology contributes to the world by making it easier to copy and modify information. Computers promise to make this easier for all of us.
Not everyone wants it to be easier. The system of copyright gives software programs ``owners'', most of whom aim to withhold software's potential benefit from the rest of the public. They would like to be the only ones who can copy and modify the software that we use.
The copyright system grew up with printing---a technology for mass production copying. Copyright fit in well with this technology because it restricted only the mass producers of copies. It did not take freedom away from readers of books. An ordinary reader, who did not own a printing press, could copy books only with pen and ink, and few readers were sued for that.
Digital technology is more flexible than the printing press: when information has digital form, you can easily copy it to share it with others. This very flexibility makes a bad fit with a system like copyright. That's the reason for the increasingly nasty and draconian measures now used to enforce software copyright. Consider these four practices of the Software Publishers Association (SPA):
All four practices resemble those used in the former Soviet Union, where every copying machine had a guard to prevent forbidden copying, and where individuals had to copy information secretly and pass it from hand to hand as ``samizdat''. There is of course a difference: the motive for information control in the Soviet Union was political; in the US the motive is profit. But it is the actions that affect us, not the motive. Any attempt to block the sharing of information, no matter why, leads to the same methods and the same harshness.
Owners make several kinds of arguments for giving them the power to control how we use information:
Owners use smear words such as ``piracy'' and ``theft'', as well as expert terminology such as ``intellectual property'' and ``damage'', to suggest a certain line of thinking to the public---a simplistic analogy between programs and physical objects.
Our ideas and intuitions about property for material objects are about whether it is right to take an object away from someone else. They don't directly apply to making a copy of something. But the owners ask us to apply them anyway.
Owners say that they suffer ``harm'' or ``economic loss'' when users copy programs themselves. But the copying has no direct effect on the owner, and it harms no one. The owner can lose only if the person who made the copy would otherwise have paid for one from the owner.
A little thought shows that most such people would not have bought copies. Yet the owners compute their ``losses'' as if each and every one would have bought a copy. That is exaggeration---to put it kindly.
Owners often describe the current state of the law, and the harsh penalties they can threaten us with. Implicit in this approach is the suggestion that today's law reflects an unquestionable view of morality---yet at the same time, we are urged to regard these penalties as facts of nature that can't be blamed on anyone.
This line of persuasion isn't designed to stand up to critical thinking; it's intended to reinforce a habitual mental pathway.
It's elementary that laws don't decide right and wrong. Every American should know that, forty years ago, it was against the law in many states for a black person to sit in the front of a bus; but only racists would say sitting there was wrong.
Authors often claim a special connection with programs they have written, and go on to assert that, as a result, their desires and interests concerning the program simply outweigh those of anyone else---or even those of the whole rest of the world. (Typically companies, not authors, hold the copyrights on software, but we are expected to ignore this discrepancy.)
To those who propose this as an ethical axiom---the author is more important than you---I can only say that I, a notable software author myself, call it bunk.
But people in general are only likely to feel any sympathy with the natural rights claims for two reasons.
One reason is an overstretched analogy with material objects. When I cook spaghetti, I do object if someone else eats it, because then I cannot eat it. His action hurts me exactly as much as it benefits him; only one of us can eat the spaghetti, so the question is, which? The smallest distinction between us is enough to tip the ethical balance.
But whether you run or change a program I wrote affects you directly and me only indirectly. Whether you give a copy to your friend affects you and your friend much more than it affects me. I shouldn't have the power to tell you not to do these things. No one should.
The second reason is that people have been told that natural rights for authors is the accepted and unquestioned tradition of our society.
As a matter of history, the opposite is true. The idea of natural rights of authors was proposed and decisively rejected when the US Constitution was drawn up. That's why the Constitution only permits a system of copyright and does not require one; that's why it says that copyright must be temporary. It also states that the purpose of copyright is to promote progress---not to reward authors. Copyright does reward authors somewhat, and publishers more, but that is intended as a means of modifying their behavior.
The real established tradition of our society is that copyright cuts into the natural rights of the public---and that this can only be justified for the public's sake.
The final argument made for having owners of software is that this leads to production of more software.
Unlike the others, this argument at least takes a legitimate approach to the subject. It is based on a valid goal---satisfying the users of software. And it is empirically clear that people will produce more of something if they are well paid for doing so.
But the economic argument has a flaw: it is based on the assumption that the difference is only a matter of how much money we have to pay. It assumes that ``production of software'' is what we want, whether the software has owners or not.
People readily accept this assumption because it accords with our experiences with material objects. Consider a sandwich, for instance. You might well be able to get an equivalent sandwich either free or for a price. If so, the amount you pay is the only difference. Whether or not you have to buy it, the sandwich has the same taste, the same nutritional value, and in either case you can only eat it once. Whether you get the sandwich from an owner or not cannot directly affect anything but the amount of money you have afterwards.
This is true for any kind of material object---whether or not it has an owner does not directly affect what it is, or what you can do with it if you acquire it.
But if a program has an owner, this very much affects what it is, and what you can do with a copy if you buy one. The difference is not just a matter of money. The system of owners of software encourages software owners to produce something---but not what society really needs. And it causes intangible ethical pollution that affects us all.
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
And above all society needs to encourage the spirit of voluntary cooperation in its citizens. When software owners tell us that helping our neighbors in a natural way is ``piracy'', they pollute our society's civic spirit.
This is why we say that free software [slashdot.org] is a matter of freedom, not price.
The economic argument for owners is erroneous, but the economic issue is real. Some people write useful software for the pleasure of writing it or for admiration and love; but if we want more software than those people write, we need to raise funds.
For ten years now, free software developers have tried various methods of finding funds, with some success. There's no need to make anyone rich; the median US family income, around $35k, proves to be enough incentive for many jobs that are less satisfying than programming.
For years, until a fellowship made it unnecessary, I made a living from custom enhancements of the free software I had written. Each enhancement was added to the standard released version and thus eventually became available to the general public. Clients paid me so that I would work on the enhancements they wanted, rather than on the features I would otherwise have considered highest priority.
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) [slashdot.org], a tax-exempt charity for free software development, raises funds by selling [slashdot.org] GNU CD-ROMs [slashdot.org], T-shirts [slashdot.org], manuals [slashdot.org], and deluxe distributions [slashdot.org], (all of which users are free to copy and change), as well as from donations [slashdot.org]. It now has a staff of five programmers, plus three employees who handle mail orders.
Some free software developers make money by selling support services. Cygnus Support, with around 50 employees [when this article was written], estimates that about 15 per cent of its staff activity is free software development---a respectable percentage for a software company.
Companies including Intel, Motorola, Texas Instruments and Analog Devices have combined to fund the continued development of the free GNU compiler for the language C. Meanwhile, the GNU compiler for the Ada language is being funded by the US Air Force, which believes this is the most cost-effective way to get a high quality compiler. [Air Force funding ended some time ago; the GNU Ada Compiler is now in service, and its maintenance is funded commercially.]
All these examples are small; the free software movement is still small, and still young. But the example of listener-supported radio in this country [the US] shows it's possible to support a large activity without forcing each user to pay.
As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary (18k characters) [slashdot.org] program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright. But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software.
You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks.
You deserve free software.
Re:Pascal? (Score:1)
For the uninitiated, Delphi is based around Object Pascal and Kylix makes use of the same language. Dismissing Kylix as being just pascal is like dismissing a space shuttle as being just another plane. The technology that is involved in Kylix or Delphi is way more advanced than one might hope to find in your garden variety pascal text book.
The danger in looking at Kylix as just another "new" language for Linux is to miss the whole point. Kylix is an entire development environment and comes with a very advanced component model, which allows developers to create components that can be easily reused across projects. The CORBA support that is part of Kylix also allows these components to be reused across machine and language boundaries.
Also, Kylix is based around a technology that has already been around for a long time and there is already a large, loyal community around it. If one looks around the web, one will find extensive, well organized component resources and many of these will be reusable on Linux with some changes or no changes. Most of these components are available with source and many of them are licensed under the GPL.Also, in building Kylix, Borland has tried to make it as easy as possible to make use of the excellent G++ resources already available on the web. Most of the native components are found either as source code or as compiled object code.
All or most of these components will plug in directly into the IDE and make it as easy as a drag and drop to a form to use them within applications. Kylix is coming from the same chaps who made JBuilder (considered one of the best development environments for Java), C++Builder (perhaps the easiest and most feature rich C++ development environments around). The Kylix IDE is very similar to the Delphi IDE (again considered one of the best IDEs around).
The primary difference between the different editions of Kylix is in the number of components shipped with each editions. But since many of the components found in more expensive editions of Kylix have equivalents that can be downloaded from the various component sites in the Internet, one can manage surprisingly well with a low priced edition of Kylix.
Kylix comes with an excellent debugger and Borland took so long to bring out Kylix primarily because they were working on getting the debugger right considering the fact that the Linux has very different view of debugger support as compared to Windows.
Kylix includes support (via the webbroker) for interaction with enterprise class application servers such as the inprise appservers which are used by some big banks such as the Bank of America. Kylix will allow the creation of enterprise class applications much faster and with far less effort and heart-burn than was possible before.
I have previewed Kylix before and it is an excellent product and will give developers an advantage in speed of development of complex apps which will be way faster than anything else out there. And that is for both platforms - Windows and Linux. Kylix includes an advanced two-way type of visual development, which makes it a real snap to develop apps.
Borland has a had a decent record of supporting the community except for the occassional screw-ups such as with the release of the Interbase database code(some licensing problems and generally a lot of confusion). But overall, Borland has succeeded in developing a loyal community even from the time when the Internet was non-existent or in its infancy.
As for concerns about the licensing issues, the source code for the applications that are developed by anyone can be given under whatever license that the creator will opt to use. Ofcourse, Kylix will still be required to compile them.
If you have any doubts regarding Kylix, download the freeware edition of Kylix and see for yourselves.
Re:everybody do your homework (Score:1)
This is great (Score:2)
Re:You are incorrect. (Score:1)
A long time ago it did, but those days have past.
Re:Sacred buggery! (Score:2)
I can see the wheels spinning: "Or I can buy Visual C++ for less than $500 a head, and sell my product to a much larger market, ensuring my survival."
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:2)
Looks like they just wanna rip off some Linux-hype/bandwagon corporate folks while they can.
You weren't expecting Kylix for free, now, were you?
Re:hmmm.... (Score:1)
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:3)
$1k/license isn't that much if you can save developer time... the unanswered question is how much (if any) time is saved, whether or not it is buggy and if it is easy to interoperate with other elements of the system, like a database. And if you could do it in another way, like switching to python.
Having something like this around might be very useful for penetration on certain kinds of corporate desktops - those were you have people punching in or extracting data from custom applications.
Re:Pascal?!?! (Score:2)
Even Turbo Pascal had many Borland extensions to the original language. Today, Delphi's Pascal supports nearly everything you'd need (obviously it doesn't support every last C++ feature, but most C++ coders don't use nearly the entire language).
It's very suitable for a RAD environment as well -- the unit approach (as opposed to includes) yields much faster compiles.
using borland/linux for eductation (Score:1)
When borland ports it's ide,.. and makes it GPL (and if I understand correctly this would also be C++),.. my college would very likely expand with one more lab.. because half of the classes thought. (GUI, and various programming related topics) could just as easily be trained using borland's software,.. and there'd be no reason not to use the GPL'd versions in school..
my only fear now is that they won't add another linux lab.. and the current lab will be cramped.
GPL and Kylix (Score:1)
Re:Compilers are OLD technology anyway... (Score:1)
Obviously a delusional individual
--
Wait.... It's FREE!!! (Score:5)
Ever written a cross-platforfm app? I have... (Score:1)
Platform abstracting layers/thunks/libraries do add chunk of code to your application but the amount is rather fixed. So, it is death for that 1000 line ditty application. But for a real application it is a manageable (and static) size increase. As you app grows from 1 to 3 megs the toolkit libraries remain fixed in size.
The poster's off the cuff remark, "I choose to write in a portable subset of C and C++" is right and wrong. The way we did our cross-platform app (500+ files, about a half million lines of code) was to stick to a "portable subset of C" but that doesn't do anything for database and GUI issues, nor does it solve the platform specific issues like file path separaters and clipboards.
Our cross-platform app (which we started in 1993) used the XVT GUI toolkit but the issues are the same now as then, you need a portable GUI layer to write to. Everyone assumes they can roll their own toolkit. Bullshit - these are complex animals. Spend the money and buy someone else's mature, debugged, documented toolkit. Back when we started our development ODBC was embryonic as was IDAPI (Borland's database layer). Lacking an industry standard (at that time) we chose to build our own database layer which gave us access to Btrieve on the PCs only and Oracle on both PCs and HP workstations. Let me tell anyone interested in doing a cross-technology layer: don't do it if you really don't have to. Use ODBC, JDBC, etc. for your databse and settle on a tool for the GUI as well. The only caveat is be leery of a toolkit specific API unless you feel good about using the toolkit/IDE for a long time. Industry standards are best but at some point you pick a tool and make a go of it for few years.
Port early, port often (the battle cry of cross-platform coders). It's not portable unless you have tested it on all target platforms. Assumed, but untested "portable" apps aren't.
History note - Borland, like Microsoft, often has 3 levels for the compilers, Personal/Student/Standard ($99), Professional ($499-$999) and Enterprise ($999-$2499) so don't get undone that they announced the high-end Enterprise tool first.
A hundred bucks is not too much for a good tool for personal use. $500 is not too much for a tool you will use to write commercial apps and any price is ok if your employer thinks it is cost effective and picks up the tab.
-- The voice of experience
Re:No wine (Score:1)
Kylix's IDE is a native Kylix application that used Winelib.
Kylix produces native executables that don't use Wine or Winelibs at all.
Kylix executables do require the qt libraries.
Re:No wine (Score:2)
Other kylix apps don't need wine so why should this one?
Porting speed. Oh, sure, Kylix *could* be written using CLX. but that would take more time.
Are you calling them liars
Liars would be harsh. Misinformed, perhaps.
Re:CLX is GPL, byt Kylix isn't... (Score:1)
Re:x86 only (Score:1)
Then you haven't been following Kylix close enough!
borland mention it on the kylix non-technical newsgroup. Anyones (who doesn't work in borland etc) guess.
> "after kylix is finished, work will start on >porting it to other platforms
Again, see the kylix non-technical newsgroup for the exact quote. They may convert the delphi kylix first... or they may just wait until all of kylix 1.00 has been released.
Re:How this could have a negative effect (Score:1)
. Either way, if someone wanted to make absolutely sure that the CLX could be included with distributions that have a strict meaning on the term "free", I'm sure decoding the
Man, get over it !
If you have the delphi source handy look up the function ObjectBinaryToText (sommut named like that I don't have Delphi handy right now), its in classes.pas I think. It allows you to convert dfm to text and vice versa with TextToObjectBinary.
Now will you stop whinging about the DFM format!
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:2)
I am not assuming any of this is true just saying what if sto help illustrate what the previous poster said.
Okay I am your average software developer.. If I told my boss this 1000 dollar program would save me 5 hours a week it would be bought for me in an instant.
Why? Because 5 hours a week at over 30 dollars an hour... 5*30=150*4=600 Dollars in one month. In two months of application development the application has paid for itself. Now my employer begins to just simply save money and deliver apps quicker and on a smaller budget. Okay so you still think 1000 dollars is much?? Paying a developer over 70,000 dollars and not giving him tools he/she says will speed up their development even if they are expenisve is throwing money away.
So 1,000 dollars is a drop in the hat when you really think about it. We pay 5-6K a year easily for our MSDN and it saves us money every time.
Okay so.. I know you guys are all sold on free software.. but you have to understand that if you develop a product and it is really good, and it will save people money and or enable them to do something more effeciently you will find that people are willing to pay if the price is right, and usually that price is high enough that you can make a very nice living as a software developer
Rant time.. And.. If everything was free well.. all of the open source developers would find real jobs and the quality of open source would drop, becuase everyone would have to ifnd real jobs and not have time for OS stuff.
Next major rant point, we often hear a whole lot about these cool open source people getting jobs with companies like VA etc, like ERic Raymond and Mandrake etc..
I bet these people literally make up such a small percentage of the developers in the world that its not even funny (That is developers working on free software full time and that is their primary job)
I have no statistics to back this up justwhat ive observed.
Its a lot easier to give something away when you are making good money and dont have anything else like buying food to worry about.
Jeremy
Re:What happened! (Score:1)
Re:Is it .NET compliant ? (Score:1)
What domain name will they use to promote it? microsoft.mil?
-Martin
No wine (Score:1)
1) The Delphi IDE is written in Delphi. The Kylix IDE will be in written Kylix. Other kylix apps don't need wine so why should this one?
2) this is in fact a point of pride for Borland - if Kylix was not capable of building the Kylix IDE it wouldn't be ready to release. Again, why should it need wine?
3) Other posters here have said that Kylix does not use WINE in any way shape or form. period. Are you calling them liars?
Mail Bombing for Linux! (Score:1)
Now all the l33t hax0rs will go to linux beacuse they can use their mail bombing programs and DoS programs. I await for the "3y3 w4nt 2 b3 a l33t gnu hax0r. h0w?????" posts on mailing list.
Re:$999? (Score:1)
It's not just about IDE (although Bordland IDE is one of the best in the world), it's also about the language (Object Pascal), the cross-platform visual components, the rich documentation, etc...
The ungrateful (Score:2)
"whaa whaa I want Delphi for Linux for free!"
"whaa whaa I shouldn't have to pay for anything!"
The same people who demand usenet answer their homework questions.
Re:What happened! (Score:1)
A bit about the product (Score:2)
$999 for cross-development? (Score:1)
You forgot an important point, Hemos (Score:5)
The "open edition" will cost $99 for a packaged version or be available as a free download. This version allows people to create only open-source software under the GPL.
Is it .NET compliant ? (Score:2)
Problem is, the world and his wife are migrating to .Net as fast as their wallets will carry them.
Unless this delphy compiles to MIL (Microsoft Intermediate Language) they haven't got a hope in hell of success.
MIL is Microsofts answer to Java, and (much as I hate to say it) is an extremely cool bit of software.
Re:At last, g++ was showing its age. (Score:2)
Sure P4 optimization isn't perfect yet. Try to find a compiler with perfect P4 optimization in the shop.
Should cost less later (Score:1)
What's the big deal (Score:1)
FYI (Score:3)
- There will be a version called Open Kylix (or Kylix Open Edition) that will be a free download, or $99 for CD+manuals. This will be intended for use for developing Free/Open Source Software. This won't be available until mid-year though.
- On Borland's Kylix newsgroup, there are rumors that Kylix's IDE uses winelib. This was qualified by saying that the generated applications themselves won't rely on winelib (only the IDE itself will). This kinda scares me a little, but not too much without giving it a chance.
- As mentioned several months ago, CLX will be licensed under the GPL (and probably dual-licensed with another for commercial development). Borland also said that CLX widgets are not real/default Qt widgets, and that they basically are all custom (so a Kylix TButton is NOT a Qt+ button). This is actually good news, since it will make a Gtk+ layer more feasible.
Prices, FYI (Score:2)
Windows programs:
Delphi 5 Enterprise - New User - $2,499.00
Delphi 5 Professional - New User - $799.00
Delphi 5 Standard - $99.95
and the Linux stuff:
Kylix Server Developer - $1,999.00
Kylix Desktop Developer - $999.00
If you compare the Windows Delphi 5 Pro and the Kylix Desktop Developer, the difference isn't that big. So this might not be that expensive for companies.
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:1)
Personally, I'll save the $999 and use wxWindows [wxwindows.com], a free (as in beer and as in freedom) cross-platform development framework for C++.
Sorry Borland, too expensive. I would consider something as high as $199, but your greed is stunning.
Re:jbuilder Re:open minds (Score:2)
argoUML just yesterday. works pretty good (argouml.org) I _think_ JBuilder 4 is all java.
It works great.
10megs is _nothing_ for a commercial distribution, considering that today a multi-cd application is normal. further, in an intranet environment, I can have total control over what is installed.
> I will NEVER buy a shrink wrapped java app.
OK, well, since you're the ultimate expert on the entire IT industry, you're opinion becomes fact and invalidates everything Java. Riiiiiiiight.
Java has a bad rap for being slow and bloated, held over from the 1.0 days when, being honest, it was pretty shitty. If you actually take the time to learn the language and the dev environment, esp. jdk 1.2+, it's not so bad.
Keep in mind that the greatest software engineering travesties to date have been done in compiled languages (*cough*any MS op.sys.*cough*), so being compiled is no insurance against bloat or sluggardliness.
This is not to say that Kylix isn't cool. Just don't go a-slamin' java if you don't know it.
--
Fuck Censorship.
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:1)
Re:dam (Score:1)
"Writ" is not a word. Check it out:
writ (rt)
n.
1.Law. A written order issued by a court, commanding the party to whom it is addressed to perform or cease performing a specified act.
2.Writings: holy writ.
Next time, shut up.
Re:You forgot an important point, Hemos (Score:1)
Frums
Its all about time to market (Score:1)
Just think about how quickly that $999 disolves away when you double your productivity. That is their goal. To make a highly productive x-platform development environment, something that Linux really needs.
Re:Wait.... It's FREE!!! (Score:1)
i dont care if my programs cost a few bucks when i know i get quality instead of buggy gtk-applications written by 14year olds.
just because we're opensource and free and everything that doesnt mean that EVERY application that costs money on linux is bad. im not personally gonna buy the desktop edition for $1k, but i sure gonna support borland by buying their $99-version when it becomes available.
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:1)
Re:You forgot an important point, Hemos (Score:1)
Re:You forgot an important point, Hemos (Score:1)
we've got irc, #delphi, or soon #kylix.
usenet, (dont know)
and numberless of community websites with examples, source and help for the needing.
The short version (Score:1)
1. Borland announces that there will be a free (as in beer) Open Edition of Kylix, which can only be used to produce GPL apps. This will produce more software that must be freely distributed as you advocate at FSF.
2. Poster says "Hey, the tool itself isn't free as in speech, but free as in beer! It's not truly free!"
3. Your response says "Yep. All software should be free. It's morally wrong for anyone to require compensation for the use of their intellectual creations."
Was that it? In 2035 words, I might have missed something!
Re:I love Borland. (Score:1)
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:1)
Borland's tools rock, you just need the cash and to get by the learning curve. I have used Delphi for 3 years and (for me) it saves a ton of time in banging out solid applications to perform miscellaneous functions (and for a hardcore programmer it is still really cool). I guess I use Delphi like most people use Perl; to just get the job done.
Re:At last, g++ was showing its age. (Score:1)
Re:A bit about the product (Score:1)
So type :make already! Just run the Kylix command line compiler on the source files, as you would for gcc to compile c code from within vi, or using make, or using shell scripts. Geeze. The main difference is that Kylix will compile and link the entire application in the time it takes gcc to compile a .c file to .o!
Does it allow for all those lowlevel debugging gdb has?
Yes, it does. The Kylix IDE internal debugger works the same as the Delphi and C++Builder IDE internal debuggers, with comparable capabilities to gdb. The main difference is you don't have to memorize dozens of cryptic gdb instructions to navigate or inspect the state of your program. That, and the CPU disassembly view lets you step into machine code that you don't have source code for (gdb doesn't).
Also: Kylix generates .stabs debug info so you can debug Kylix apps in gdb if you so desire.
Does the user need to download another set of large libraries to use my applications?
Nope. Non-GUI Kylix applications require only a current glibc installed on user's machines. That's all, nothing else. GUI Kylix apps require installation of the QT library, included in the Kylix product. QT is already be installed on systems running KDE.
Re:Are you sure about Qt? (Score:1)
Re:How this could have a negative effect (Score:2)
Only if they are using a platform supported by Borland. I can take any GPL'd program written with gcc and stand a good chance of making it work on my Alpha (or for that matter my ARM based RiscPC). Will that be the same for GPL'd code written with Kylix?
almost finally... (Score:2)
I've been following Kylix for quite some now, and it does everything that I need it to start working on the Linux platform without having to learn a "difficult" programming language. Of course... I have to say "almost finally" because it's technically not available yet.
I know that there are licensing issues that people are concerned about, but IMHO the disadvantages are nothing compared with the advantage of having RAD developers (there are a lot of us, you know) able to develop business applications in a hurry on the Linux platform. Hurrah!
-rt-
Re:Compilers are OLD technology anyway... (Score:2)
How this could have a negative effect (Score:2)
I'm sorry that something that could have positive effects like this, at the time of release, needs to have the negative effects pointed out. However, this is one of those times.
Kylix is not free enough to be fully accepted by all of the Free Software advocates. Not by a long shot. The restrictions it imposes, and the corporate control of the language are just non-negotiable to the same people who stayed away from KDE because of the old licensing conditions.
It's been shown that the part of the community who calls themselves the Open Source Community are well disposed to using software which does not meet all of the requirements that some people in our community require their software to have before they put a considerable time investment in learning it and using it.
In order for developers not to fragment this community's software choice, I would have to advise against writing general purpose software for Kylix. It must NOT become a core part of Linux distros.
Dual-licensed runtime library (Score:2)
This is an interesting combination of Perl's dual license (GPL and Artistic) and the approach Cygnus took. They ported gcc to Windows NT/2000 (it mostly also works on 95/98/ME), and included a GPL'ed C runtime library. (This, plus a bunch of ported GNU software, is Cygwin [cygwin.com].) This "infects" your application, so it can only be used to develop free (speech) software. Cygnus also implemented an alternative C runtime library, which they licensed as non-free, commercial software
(Or they used to. A quick search of the Red Hat's site seems to show they now only do this for embedded software [redhat.com].)
Re:Are you sure about Qt? (Score:2)
That's a bargain. A QT development license is $1550. I wonder how much of a cut Borland is getting of that $999.
http://www.trolltech.com/products/purchase/pricing .html [trolltech.com]
jbuilder Re:open minds (Score:2)
Well, JBuilder 4 (free version on linux w/ sun jdk 1.3, or is it using it's own internal ibm 1.3?) is pretty dang nice. :-) So if you like java, it's a good option. (Forte by Sun is pretty cool too, but it feels kinda sluggish compared to JBuilder. On the third hand I haven't tried it since 1.0, and it's at 2.0 now I think.)
Of course if you don't like java... Well, there is CodeWarrior for (c|c++|java) I think. I've never tried it but it is out there.
--
Fuck Censorship.
That's not at all true.. (Score:2)
They are frontends to the GNU compiler, which consists of a nifty set of parse trees, a register transfer language (RTL) [a sort-of arch-independant algebraic-pseudo-LLL], optimizers (mostly at RTL level), and an assembler (gas or as, depending on your installation).
--
Re:At last, g++ was showing its age. (Score:2)
I really hate to admit it, but the only compiler that seems to implement full support of C++ (including namespaces, templates, et. al.) is MSVC 6. Unfortunately that comes at the cost of being platform specific, and several of the POSIX APIs only implement the minimal spec (e.g. minimal support for NLS, though clearly the platform could handle it -- you have to use platform-specific APIs that have few changes other than the function/method name.)
As to P4 optimization, who cares right now? Until they ramp up the clock speed and drop the price significantly, you get far better bang for the buck with an Athlon/Thunderbird or with dual PIIIs. By the time P4 is worth buying, I'm sure GCC will be doing a pretty good job with the optimization.
As to Borland's compilers, they're good, but I haven't actually used them much. I know how to make things work with MSVC and have current copies of both compilers; I'd rather spend my learning time playing with new kits (qt, kde, gnome, bonobo, etc.) than learning how to make another compiler turn the same code into executables.
Re:How this could have a negative effect (Score:2)
The old, thankfully resolved KDE license was very different. There were real legal issues with distributing KDE binaries that mixed QT and GPL licensed code.
There would be no such issue with GPL'ed programs written in Kylix. The only limitation is that the tool used to compile the program is not, in itself, GPLed. But it's a free download, so users would always have the right and the capability to modify the program they are using.
So... as long as that free download can't become "un-free" I don't think there's much to worry about. I will be carefully checking the click-through license on it though. I could imagine a scenario where Borland goes out of business, and you can't get the free version of Kylix from them any more, but the license makes it illegal for anyone else to distribute it.
That would be a real problem, because people using the GPL'ed software would not be able to exercise their right to modify it, because they wouldn't be able to get the tools to do so.
I suspect that it won't be an issue though, because it seems that Borland has thought this through pretty well. But that's hypothetical, and until we see the details of the license on the free version of Kylix it's not worth getting all stressed out about.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:what's free (Score:2)
Those BSD guys are gonna be pissed.
Re:You forgot an important point, Hemos (Score:4)
What's "shrinkwrapped" got to do with it? Just because it doesn't come in a box on the shelf at CompUSA, doesn't mean there isn't money to be made selling it or writing it.
Most Delphi apps tend to be either internal corporate/government apps (especially front ends for databases, since that's one of Delphi's main strengths), or vertical market apps that cater to various niches. The place where I work now is probably typical: about 20 Delphi programmers working on a dozen more different Windows apps. Some of those apps are things we sell. Others are internal utilities or support tools. None of them are sold shrink-wrap, but we make a fair chunk of moolah on them. And from the conversations I've had with the other programmers, their previous Delphi projects were similar.
The moment Kylix is available, we're buying it, primarily because our apps need to run on memory-starved systems like these [jvln.com] that will be much happier running Linux instead of Win2K, but we like programming in Delphi and don't want to have to give it up in order to write Linux apps.
open minds (Score:5)
More to come (Score:2)
- There will be some version of MIDAS (Borland's XML middleware) for Linux, and that could play an important role in next generation versions of Kylix.
- There will be an Enterprise version of Kylix that includes both the Delphi and C++ builder sides in a single, integrated package. This would likely bring MIDAS and Corba support to the table.
- Delphi 6 (the next generation) development on Linux is almost in sync with its Windows counterpart, so the release lag between the two should be very short.
Things I want to know:
- Will this ever be ported to other Unices? Solaris would be great for server side development, and since this is all based on Qt, it'd just be the compiler that needed changes. Obviously, its nontrivial to write a good Sparc compiler for a serious language, but it's a lot easier than rewriting an entire, massive development library AND a compiler.
- Will they start giving away an open edition of Delphi or C++ builder on Windows? They already do it for JBuilder foundation. JBuilder, BTW, is so good that I actually bought the Pro version.
- Will C++ builder have a free, "open edition" for Linux? This could have a huge impact, as you could develop ANY C/C++ GPL app with it. Surely they don't make you include the CLX libraries if you're writing for the console.
- We know that Borland's C++ compiler is incredibly fast at build time (I mean, like an order of magnitude faster than g++ for some programs, though that includes linking + assembling time), and we know it has good standards compliance. But how fast is the output code relative to g++ on Linux?
--JRZ
Re:A bit about the product (Score:2)
Another thing what is bothering me about this new "RAD tool" is that it makes programmers lazy. IMHO your tools should be asflexible as possible, allowing you to do everything that can be done on computers. I just can't see how this can be done by clicking and dragging and typing small sets of code thereby linking objects.
----
In Delphi (and I am assuming kylix) there isn't much you can't do. You don't have to use the RAD portion of the IDE if you don't want too. You can create your windows, buttons and other components yourself and position them yourself also. Kylix just attempts to simplify this for you. Kylix can do assembly also, so if you need to go that low level, you can.
----------------
This new tool might be of interest to many people who have difficulties understanding the underlying principles of the graphical toolkit libraries, or just don't want to be bothered by it too much
---------------
Although cases of the former definitely exist, the latter is more prevalent. I use notepad to develop java, and I hate (absolutely hate) it because doing a "javac *.java, java application" everytime I want to check to make sure a button is in the correct location slows me down 10 fold. If only JBuilder was faster and more like Delphi I would love it.
---------
As great as this tool might look, how much flexibility will this take away? It might be a pain to write your applications in VI, letting it compile by Kylix (typing
-----
As far as I know, there is no reason why you can't use make with kylix. The compiler can easily be used from the command line.
---------
Does it allow for all those lowlevel debugging gdb has?
-------
Delphi's debugger (and I am assuming kylix's also) is the best I have ever used and can go as low level as you want.
--------
Can I create GTK as well as QT applications with it?
----
Hmmm.. good question. I know in future releases GTK is intended to be supported natively.
------
Does the user need to download another set of large libraries to use my applications?
------
Nope, just have QT installed.
Hope that answered some of your questions
Re:How this could have a negative effect (Score:2)
Still, I find it fascinating that people object to a commercial product (BTW, I posted the notification that Kylix was out this AM...and was rejected. Argh. Think Cmdr. Taco has an automatic reject script on my id) simply because it is closed source.
Kylix was designed by Borland to fill the needs of existing Delphi and VB programmers...programmers that want to bring their apps to Linux. These applications may or may not be intended for the general linux community. Instead, they may be commercial or private ventures where the open source issues are negated.
Borland is fully cognizant of the GPL issues. They may not release the source to their tools, but I don't believe they will hose us in the end.Additionally, they have stated in the past that they aren't going after the niche filled by GCC and Perl. Instead, they have stated that they are enabling production quality business and database apps through a RAD environment.
If you want to carve stones with bronze chisels, then have at it. Me, I'll go with the carbide tip cutting tool. Of course, I'm partial as I've been a Delphi developer since its initial release and think everything else is a bronze chisel.
RD
Actually, you're wrong. (Score:5)
Close, though.
What happened! (Score:5)
This Kylix thing for example; People are all over themselves with how I couda done this in this language, or Perl would solve World hunger (which it very well may -- but's that's besides the point).
Here are my points:
1) Read the article; there will be a free version for download.
2) Eyery language bigot I have ever met starts of with "What can your language do that mine can't?" If you have to ask, you are not worth talking to. Because, the answer is -- very little to nothing.
3)Perl, Python, C/C++ -- all of these do exist on the Windows platform. Yet, Delphi find a comfortable place among them. No, it's not the *most* popular language for Win dev, but so isn't Python. ( Sorry, but I had to say it).
4) It's not about having a language -- there are plenty. It's about having a industrial strength RAD environment on Linux.
5) It's about having a good enough platform that lets you switch from a productive RAD session to a performance tuned server app without managing 20 different code windows. And it's about being able to debug them both at the same time.
6) This is not about language wars.
7) This is not about language wars; stay home.
8) As a professional Windows software developer, who has been playing with Linux since the version 1.0 kernel, price isn't the issue to me. My company pays me 6 figure salaries not because how many languages I know. They pay me because I deliver. And if Lylix lets me deliver -- on Linux -- several times faster than I could before, I would pay the $2000 price without taking a "slashdor moment."
Now back to our regular programming...
Re:Compilers are OLD technology anyway... (Score:2)
if you're going to be sarcastic at least get your facts right...
VB: interprets p-code while writing and debugging but compiles to NATIVE CODE.
Smalltalk: Check out the squeek compile via c
Java: interpreted by default but there JITs and also real native code compilers
.NET interpreted MSIL, but compiled to native on first run and on subsequent change.
I don't get it... (Score:2)
As if there's something Perl can't do! Psh!
Re:US Release Only? WTF? (Score:2)
everybody do your homework (Score:3)
1) They are releasing a free version for download or to buy ($99 for cd and manual by mail). This will be equivalent to what the JBuilder 4 free download is to the JBuilder 4 professional edition.
2) Kylix does not use Wine in any way shape or form. Period.
3) CLX is GPL'ed. A damn smart move.
4) C++ builder will follow in around 6 months. So to all those people who (for some reason are another) are anti-object pascal, this is still a damn good thing.
The only thing I am worried about is compatibility with gcc. Otherwise this is the best thing to happen to linux in a long long time.
Can anybody give me reasons why they won't use it? Do people have a prejudice against IDEs or RADs?
Borland is doing a good thing, and paying attention to what people in the linux community are asking for.
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:3)
1. There is a free download version. You can only write GPL'ed programs with it because it links in code released under the GPL - even though the Kylix platform is not all GPL. I have no problem with that, I applaud Borland for coming up with an interesting way to support free software development while still maintaining some intellectual property. I know I'll give the free version a try when it comes out.
2. Given that a good developer costs far more than $1000 a week in salary, then this software is worth getting even if it saves less than a week of development time. If I like the free version of this software and find a use for it, I'm sure my company will buy me a copy.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:You forgot an important point, Hemos (Score:2)
I love Borland. (Score:4)
We'll probably buy it... (Score:3)
I'm a former VB Programmer (as well as general NT guy who used Linux as a hobby for a few years), and VB was always irritating to do anything useful. C++ Builder was irratating (I'm not a huge C++ fan), by Delphi was interesting to say the least.
Developing quick database applications is gold. Doing them all web based is irratating, and the UI isn't so hot. The ability to let your administrative tools be written as a desktop applications is awesome. While the Windows only version would be adequate, Linux support makes our life easier. Our development environment in Linux, so while we all have Windows computers as well, it's more convenient to have everything in one place.
This, in a work, rocks.
Borland to support Linux (Score:2)
The problem with capped Karma is it only goes down...
Re:$999 for cross-development? (Score:3)
----
Black Adder (Score:3)
While Kylix is very interesting for Delphi users wishing to migrate from legacy OSes i think Black Adder is a better choice for the unix crowd. (It's not OSS tho - but i can understand that theKompany needs to make a living too. They've released tons of Free software, so i don't mind "sponsoring" their Free work with buying other non-Free software)
Not to mention that Black Adder is a much cooler name than Kylix :)
-henrik
Re:US Release Only? WTF? (Score:2)
Some random notes about Borland/Inprise (Score:3)
Also, they are promising three different versions. A 'server' version, a 'desktop' version, and a free version, that will include GPL'ed versions of the libraries, therby forcing you to write GPL'ed software with it. Sounds pretty decent to me.
(For more information, check out this editorial [linuxtoday.com] on the subject at Linux Today.)