Comments on: Users plead with Borland to give up .NET http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html Tech writing blog Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:04:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian Wheatley http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-11182 Brian Wheatley Wed, 11 Apr 2007 02:19:22 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-11182 I didn't get the impression that Simon is suggesting that Borland shouldn't develop .NET tools. It seems to me that he's suggesting that the development of DELPHI should be focused more on native applications. If Delphi is part of a larger toolbox that also includes .NET development then that's great. My primary development tool is - and probably will be for some time - Delphi 7 Enterprise. I invested in the upgrade to Delphi 2006 and was largely very unhappy with the product. Microsoft's Visual C++ is also on my shelf, and while I'm already familiar with C++ for Borland C++ on DOS based systems the Visual C++ IDE was absolutely terrible. I much prefer the Delphi IDE so it was very upsetting when Borland cloned the MS IDE. Maybe I'm just being picky, and maybe I'll eventually get over it and see that Delphi 2006 is ok, but without having any pressing need to upgrade I just don't feel compelled to completely relearn a new development environment. I didn’t get the impression that Simon is suggesting that Borland shouldn’t develop .NET tools. It seems to me that he’s suggesting that the development of DELPHI should be focused more on native applications. If Delphi is part of a larger toolbox that also includes .NET development then that’s great.

My primary development tool is – and probably will be for some time – Delphi 7 Enterprise. I invested in the upgrade to Delphi 2006 and was largely very unhappy with the product.

Microsoft’s Visual C++ is also on my shelf, and while I’m already familiar with C++ for Borland C++ on DOS based systems the Visual C++ IDE was absolutely terrible. I much prefer the Delphi IDE so it was very upsetting when Borland cloned the MS IDE.

Maybe I’m just being picky, and maybe I’ll eventually get over it and see that Delphi 2006 is ok, but without having any pressing need to upgrade I just don’t feel compelled to completely relearn a new development environment.

]]> By: James Gibbons http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-42 James Gibbons Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:34:26 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-42 I tend to agree with Kissel that getting win32 up to date is more important than chasing the rapidly changing .NET environment. Win64, Linux and unicode support would possibly open up more markets to Delphi than following behind Microsoft's toolset. I am a small developer working in the areas where win32 shines: soft real-time machine vision and robotics applications. I wouldn't even try doing these in .NET because CLR is way too slow and automatic memory management can cause problems with the program flow. Sure, there are third party libraries for vision processing and I use one, but they only do some of the work necessary. I still need to code some custom processing to put it all together. The closest I need to get to the Enterprise is needing support to pump some data into an SQL database and I really don't need to do that from the vision application as I write the data in binary files and use an offline application to read it and pump it into SQL. Currently I use VBA in an Excel spreadsheet linked through ODBC to generate reports and I really don't have much need for anything more fancy. Other applications that don't run well under .NET include any process intensive program such as the physics calculations for game play. Three companies exist here in Eugene, Oregon that create game SDKs and they all target C++ for game creation. I'm sure MS has some plan for people to write games in .NET, but I doubt they will be used for anything serious. Game creators may not trust MS to define their ability to create games by forcing them to use a certain API other than the basic things that are needed to speed up the interface such as DirectX. Doing games in .NET would require a large addition of physics and graphics APIs and would need to be outside of CLR to be efficient. I always wondered why Borland was so quick to drop Linux/Kylix and go with .NET. Remember many years ago when MS got all other compiler vendors to switch to MFC and Borland refused and stuck with OWL. Borland came through but almost all the others are gone. Now here's a paranoid thought: several years ago Borland licensed .NET though a cross licensing deal with MS. Around the same time they dropped support for Kylix. Ever wonder if the licensing deal had anything to do with this? I have! MS killed the other C++ vendors with MFC and they may be doing the same to Borland with .NET. MS also killed OS/2 and is keeping Linux off of new PCs with exclusive licensing deals. I seriously believe that in order to license .NET that Borland had to agree to some special terms, but we will never know about it unless MS gets into trouble and some document leaks out of a court case. Just a paranoid thought at this point, but given past history it might just explain why Borland is going down the .NET road so fast. I tend to agree with Kissel that getting win32 up to date is more important than chasing the rapidly changing .NET environment. Win64, Linux and unicode support would possibly open up more markets to Delphi than following behind Microsoft’s toolset.

I am a small developer working in the areas where win32 shines: soft real-time machine vision and robotics applications. I wouldn’t even try doing these in .NET because CLR is way too slow and automatic memory management can cause problems with the program flow. Sure, there are third party libraries for vision processing and I use one, but they only do some of the work necessary. I still need to code some custom processing to put it all together. The closest I need to get to the Enterprise is needing support to pump some data into an SQL database and I really don’t need to do that from the vision application as I write the data in binary files and use an offline application to read it and pump it into SQL. Currently I use VBA in an Excel spreadsheet linked through ODBC to generate reports and I really don’t have much need for anything more fancy.

Other applications that don’t run well under .NET include any process intensive program such as the physics calculations for game play. Three companies exist here in Eugene, Oregon that create game SDKs and they all target C++ for game creation. I’m sure MS has some plan for people to write games in .NET, but I doubt they will be used for anything serious. Game creators may not trust MS to define their ability to create games by forcing them to use a certain API other than the basic things that are needed to speed up the interface such as DirectX. Doing games in .NET would require a large addition of physics and graphics APIs and would need to be outside of CLR to be efficient.

I always wondered why Borland was so quick to drop Linux/Kylix and go with .NET. Remember many years ago when MS got all other compiler vendors to switch to MFC and Borland refused and stuck with OWL. Borland came through but almost all the others are gone. Now here’s a paranoid thought: several years ago Borland licensed .NET though a cross licensing deal with MS. Around the same time they dropped support for Kylix. Ever wonder if the licensing deal had anything to do with this? I have! MS killed the other C++ vendors with MFC and they may be doing the same to Borland with .NET. MS also killed OS/2 and is keeping Linux off of new PCs with exclusive licensing deals. I seriously believe that in order to license .NET that Borland had to agree to some special terms, but we will never know about it unless MS gets into trouble and some document leaks out of a court case. Just a paranoid thought at this point, but given past history it might just explain why Borland is going down the .NET road so fast.

]]> By: Kent Morwath http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-37 Kent Morwath Fri, 20 Oct 2006 11:24:16 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-37 "Mono is not just prototypes. I suggest you research some of what is happening with Mono right now" What's happening? Mono lags behing .NET just like Delphi does. They have to rewrite any bit of code, meaning that you can't be sure it works *exactly* like the MS ones, extensive tests are required. And noone would be fool enough to run Mono under Windows. Mono exists only because MS needs to avoid antitrust issues. Under any operating system, Java is a far better VM for cross-platform development, if you need it. At least it's the same standard Java on any platform. "There is a ton of .NET development in the Enterprise. Just check the job ads" As there are tons of Java ads. Java has been around for ten years, and it didn't killed native apps as many ten years ago were saying. Actually, the most successful Java app is a Java IDE... “Mono is not just prototypes. I suggest you research some of what is happening with Mono right now”

What’s happening? Mono lags behing .NET just like Delphi does. They have to rewrite any bit of code, meaning that you can’t be sure it works *exactly* like the MS ones, extensive tests are required. And noone would be fool enough to run Mono under Windows.
Mono exists only because MS needs to avoid antitrust issues. Under any operating system, Java is a far better VM for cross-platform development, if you need it. At least it’s the same standard Java on any platform.

“There is a ton of .NET development in the Enterprise. Just check the job ads”
As there are tons of Java ads. Java has been around for ten years, and it didn’t killed native apps as many ten years ago were saying. Actually, the most successful Java app is a Java IDE…

]]> By: Tim http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-24 Tim Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:08:28 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-24 <blockquote> I always wonder about the win32-in-decline statements. They somehow seem to assume that the decline will continue to zero. </blockquote> I can't imagine why. Win32 development will continue for the forseeable future. That doesn't mean it won't decline though. There is a ton of .NET development in the Enterprise. Just check the job ads. Tim

I always wonder about the win32-in-decline statements. They somehow seem to assume that the decline will continue to zero.

I can’t imagine why. Win32 development will continue for the forseeable future. That doesn’t mean it won’t decline though.

There is a ton of .NET development in the Enterprise. Just check the job ads.

Tim

]]> By: Marco van de Voort http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-10 Marco van de Voort Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:29:40 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-10 I always wonder about the win32-in-decline statements. They somehow seem to assume that the decline will continue to zero. It won't, just like the growth of Java didn't kill native development. Most of the .NETies are not going to .NET for application development, but simply because ASP.NET is a good and cheap webdevelopment method. Nearly all .NET development that I see, Microsoft OR Delphi based, is ASP.NET. It's not C# or .NET that has the pull, but ASP.NET, but that will only appear to the webdevelopers faction I always wonder about the win32-in-decline statements. They somehow seem to assume that the decline will continue to zero.

It won’t, just like the growth of Java didn’t kill native development.

Most of the .NETies are not going to .NET for application development, but simply because ASP.NET is a good and cheap webdevelopment method.

Nearly all .NET development that I see, Microsoft OR Delphi based, is ASP.NET.

It’s not C# or .NET that has the pull, but ASP.NET, but that will only appear to the webdevelopers faction

]]> By: Tim Anderson http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-9 Tim Anderson Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:28:54 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-9 > Do you believe any CLR implementation not made by MS has any chance of > success, beyond - as a matter of fact - prototypes? Mono is not just prototypes. I suggest you research some of what is happening with Mono right now. Tim > Do you believe any CLR implementation not made by MS has any chance of
> success, beyond – as a matter of fact – prototypes?

Mono is not just prototypes. I suggest you research some of what is happening with Mono right now.

Tim

]]> By: Kent Morwath http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-8 Kent Morwath Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:28:34 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-8 "Well, Microsoft controls its CLR implementation, but that does not mean that they control every CLR implementation." Do you believe any CLR implementation not made by MS has any chance of success, beyond - as a matter of fact - prototypes? Be prosaic. .NET is a proprietary MS platform. MS.NET comes with Windows. MS.NET is backed up by a large company, not a bunch of hackers. ECMA is just a facade to try to avoid new antitrust actions. But they know that no one is large enough to get in the way. “Well, Microsoft controls its CLR implementation, but that does not mean that they control every CLR implementation.”

Do you believe any CLR implementation not made by MS has any chance of success, beyond – as a matter of fact – prototypes? Be prosaic. .NET is a proprietary MS platform. MS.NET comes with Windows. MS.NET is backed up by a large company, not a bunch of hackers. ECMA is just a facade to try to avoid new antitrust actions. But they know that no one is large enough to get in the way.

]]> By: Tim Anderson http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-7 Tim Anderson Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:28:12 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-7 Thanks Miguel. > Microsoft controls its CLR implementation, but that does not mean that > they control every CLR implementation. an important distinction Tim Thanks Miguel.

> Microsoft controls its CLR implementation, but that does not mean that
> they control every CLR implementation.

an important distinction

Tim

]]> By: Miguel de Icaza http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-6 Miguel de Icaza Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:27:48 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-6 Well, Microsoft controls its CLR implementation, but that does not mean that they control every CLR implementation. Plenty of people have used Mono and its components for research and development. There are 3 or 4 languages based on Mono's C# compiler that are derivatives to explore new ideas (it is a lot simpler to prototype ideas with Mono C# compiler as its written in C# instead of C++). But prototyping does not have to finish there, if there are valuable additions that should be put on the CLR, they can be tried out in Mono (or Rotor) and the useful ideas brought forward to the ECMA committee (ECMA standardizes *existing* practice, which means that at least one prototype should exist). There are thousands of ideas that people have played with, including native compilation (mkbundle + aot), becoming an object hub for other things other than COM (XPCOM, Uno, Corba integration), support for scripting languags (tagged types, continuations) or support for other inheritance systems (multiple inheritance for example). Then the issue is whether the idea makes actual sense in the core or not. For example, multiple inheritance has been implemented with some very clever tricks by Eiffel on top of the existing object model, and considering the deployment times, it might not make sense. Continuations have been explored outside the realm of changes to the CLR by using code instrumentation tools (See the SecondLife presentation at LangNet2006). Miguel Well, Microsoft controls its CLR implementation, but that does not mean that they control every CLR implementation.

Plenty of people have used Mono and its components for research and development. There are 3 or 4 languages based on Mono’s C# compiler that are derivatives to explore new ideas (it is a lot simpler to prototype ideas with Mono C# compiler as its written in C# instead of C++).

But prototyping does not have to finish there, if there are valuable additions that should be put on the CLR, they can be tried out in Mono (or Rotor) and the useful ideas brought forward to the ECMA committee (ECMA standardizes *existing* practice, which means that at least one prototype should exist).

There are thousands of ideas that people have played with, including native compilation (mkbundle + aot), becoming an object hub for other things other than COM (XPCOM, Uno, Corba integration), support for scripting languags (tagged types, continuations) or support for other inheritance systems (multiple inheritance for example).

Then the issue is whether the idea makes actual sense in the core or not. For example, multiple inheritance has been implemented with some very clever tricks by Eiffel on top of the existing object model, and considering the deployment times, it might not make sense.

Continuations have been explored outside the realm of changes to the CLR by using code instrumentation tools (See the SecondLife presentation at LangNet2006).

Miguel

]]> By: Tim Anderson http://www.itwriting.com/blog/4-users-plead-with-borland-to-give-up-net.html/comment-page-1#comment-5 Tim Anderson Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:26:55 +0000 http://www.itwriting.com/blog/?p=4#comment-5 > If MS doesn't mind to write Vista utilities - not the OS - in .NET should I? It is not a question of "should". You can choose. But .NET is a best-fit for enterprise apps, web apps, and applications where productivity is more important than runtime efficiency. That's a poor fit for an OS but a good fit for many other scenarios. Vista's Media Center is a .NET application, by the way. Tim > If MS doesn’t mind to write Vista utilities – not the OS – in .NET should I?

It is not a question of “should”. You can choose. But .NET is a best-fit for enterprise apps, web apps, and applications where productivity is more important than runtime efficiency. That’s a poor fit for an OS but a good fit for many other scenarios.

Vista’s Media Center is a .NET application, by the way.

Tim

]]>