Comments on: David I in Europe - Day 2 - May 2nd http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573 David Intersimone (David I) CodeGear blog about programming, languages, history, and more. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:57:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.3-2.2.1 By: David Intersimone http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-835 David Intersimone Fri, 05 May 2006 02:55:21 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-835 > Ken typed - DevCo is a separate entity even now within Borland. <br> <br>You got it right. We've been working towards this day (when we are an internal group) since the February 8th announcement. Next stop, an independent company. > Ken typed - DevCo is a separate entity even now within Borland.

You got it right. We’ve been working towards this day (when we are an internal group) since the February 8th announcement. Next stop, an independent company.

]]> By: Ken White http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-271 Ken White Thu, 04 May 2006 07:14:22 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-271 Mike: <br> <br>"Meantime Borland laying out people... So, David must forgive me, but you speaches, sound like bla, bla, bla... " <br> <br>Your point is? What Borland does has no meaning with regard to DevCo; DevCo is a separate entity even now within Borland. <br> <br>Ken Mike:

"Meantime Borland laying out people… So, David must forgive me, but you speaches, sound like bla, bla, bla… "

Your point is? What Borland does has no meaning with regard to DevCo; DevCo is a separate entity even now within Borland.

Ken

]]> By: Mike Evteev http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-834 Mike Evteev Thu, 04 May 2006 06:17:34 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-834 Interfaces were mentioned in context of D3. At the moment they were COM based, so Andrei partly right. They still wait to become language integrated more like in java. <br> <br>Also saing that D was the lead in COM arena is kind of ridiculous, we all know it. D was and is consistently behind MS technologies (thought a way better then any MS product across the history). That was Andrei point. And it's still valid. <br> <br>I very like D and wish it all the best! But it will go away eventualy if situation not improves. <br> <br>Meantime Borland laying out people... So, David must forgive me, but you speaches, sound like bla, bla, bla... <br> <br>Until i see "DevCo" alive with my eyes, until new version released, there is nothing to talk about. All this prizes and awards is just a panegyric for dead body shadow... Interfaces were mentioned in context of D3. At the moment they were COM based, so Andrei partly right. They still wait to become language integrated more like in java.

Also saing that D was the lead in COM arena is kind of ridiculous, we all know it. D was and is consistently behind MS technologies (thought a way better then any MS product across the history). That was Andrei point. And it’s still valid.

I very like D and wish it all the best! But it will go away eventualy if situation not improves.

Meantime Borland laying out people… So, David must forgive me, but you speaches, sound like bla, bla, bla…

Until i see "DevCo" alive with my eyes, until new version released, there is nothing to talk about. All this prizes and awards is just a panegyric for dead body shadow…

]]> By: David Intersimone http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-833 David Intersimone Thu, 04 May 2006 00:58:31 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-833 > 2. Interfaces in Delphi are not "spoiled by COM". Interfaces in Delphi exist and function completely separate from COM. They are reference counted, but that doesn't mean they are tied to COM. <br> <br>You are absolutely right - you can use interfaces (and multiple interface inheritance) for everything in your programming. They were added to make com programming easier, but they are greatly useful for other programming tasks. > 2. Interfaces in Delphi are not "spoiled by COM". Interfaces in Delphi exist and function completely separate from COM. They are reference counted, but that doesn’t mean they are tied to COM.

You are absolutely right - you can use interfaces (and multiple interface inheritance) for everything in your programming. They were added to make com programming easier, but they are greatly useful for other programming tasks.

]]> By: Chee Wee Chua http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-5 Chee Wee Chua Wed, 03 May 2006 23:58:58 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-5 Delphi the IDE running in Windows is written in C#, C++, C, J# and Delphi (the language) itself. Delphi the IDE running in Windows is written in C#, C++, C, J# and Delphi (the language) itself.

]]> By: Nick Hodges http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-832 Nick Hodges Wed, 03 May 2006 20:13:00 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-832 Andrei -- <br> <br>Can't leave your post unresponded to on a couple of points. <br> <br>1. The issue is the language, not whether Delphi supports a particular external control or not. Your point is valid to a certain degree, but not the point at hand. <br> <br>2. Interfaces in Delphi are not "spoiled by COM". Interfaces in Delphi exist and function completely separate from COM. They are reference counted, but that doesn't mean they are tied to COM. <br> <br>Nick Andrei –

Can’t leave your post unresponded to on a couple of points.

1. The issue is the language, not whether Delphi supports a particular external control or not. Your point is valid to a certain degree, but not the point at hand.

2. Interfaces in Delphi are not "spoiled by COM". Interfaces in Delphi exist and function completely separate from COM. They are reference counted, but that doesn’t mean they are tied to COM.

Nick

]]> By: Andrei Gerasimenko http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-267 Andrei Gerasimenko Wed, 03 May 2006 08:57:34 +0000 http://blogs.codegear.com/davidi/2006/05/03/24573#comment-267 I like and use Delphi. However, I feel that your discussion of the "Delphi peak" timing might be more balanced, since Delphi is behind VS in some areas. For example, Delphi Rich Edit knows about MS Rich Edit 1 and 2, while the current version is 5. There are always some SDK headers that are not yet translated into Delphi and the best way to use them is C++ Builder. Delphi interfaces are a nice language feature spoiled beyond recovery by COM: I do not need reference counting and Query Interface in the language. Why COM interface had not been made a child of plain interface? Now MS quits COM and goes to clean interfaces in .NET... AFAIK, Delphi for .NET makes all objects garbage collectable. IMHO it is much less cute then MS C++ that allows to create both garbage collectable and traditional objects. OK, Delphi will be .NET 2.0 compatible soon. What about the price for those faithfull who have to go through unoperational Delphi 8 and 2005 to finally working 2006 and then upgrade again just to get close to VS? BTW, when C++ Builder will be .NET 2.0 compatible? Yes, there USED to be free foundation editions. What will be the Borland answer to the free Express set of MS tools available NOW? Is Delphi 2006 written in Delphi 2006 (as VS is written in VS) or does Borland know any other way to guarantee quality? How much time does it take Borland to replace [0..0] arrays with some smarter language feature so that Win32 functions work with range checking on? Despite all the above, Delphi people may be proud of their work. I just want to use this opportunity to reach them directly to get sure that they stay realistic. I like and use Delphi. However, I feel that your discussion of the "Delphi peak" timing might be more balanced, since Delphi is behind VS in some areas. For example, Delphi Rich Edit knows about MS Rich Edit 1 and 2, while the current version is 5. There are always some SDK headers that are not yet translated into Delphi and the best way to use them is C++ Builder. Delphi interfaces are a nice language feature spoiled beyond recovery by COM: I do not need reference counting and Query Interface in the language. Why COM interface had not been made a child of plain interface? Now MS quits COM and goes to clean interfaces in .NET… AFAIK, Delphi for .NET makes all objects garbage collectable. IMHO it is much less cute then MS C++ that allows to create both garbage collectable and traditional objects. OK, Delphi will be .NET 2.0 compatible soon. What about the price for those faithfull who have to go through unoperational Delphi 8 and 2005 to finally working 2006 and then upgrade again just to get close to VS? BTW, when C++ Builder will be .NET 2.0 compatible? Yes, there USED to be free foundation editions. What will be the Borland answer to the free Express set of MS tools available NOW? Is Delphi 2006 written in Delphi 2006 (as VS is written in VS) or does Borland know any other way to guarantee quality? How much time does it take Borland to replace [0..0] arrays with some smarter language feature so that Win32 functions work with range checking on? Despite all the above, Delphi people may be proud of their work. I just want to use this opportunity to reach them directly to get sure that they stay realistic.

]]>