Tim Anderson's ITWriting [Valid RSS]

Tech writing blog

Blog Home RSS Archives ITWriting.com
Add to Feedburner Add to Bloglines Add to Newsgator Add to My Yahoo

October 13, 2006

Users plead with Borland to give up .NET

Posted 4028 days ago on October 13, 2006

This posting has moved. For the current version with comments, please click here

Delphi user and Kylix enthusiast Simon Kissel (Kissel is the author of CrossKylix) has written a sharp critique of Borland's developer tool strategy.

He says few are buying Borland's .NET tools. They buy Delphi for its native code compiler, and need new features like Unicode and Win64 support. Borland (or DevCo) by contrast is focusing on .NET, but is failing because it cannot keep pace with Microsoft.

I am about 75% in agreement with Kissel. In addition, the splitting of DevCo from Borland, presuming it eventually completes, changes the dynamics in favour of native code. If you put ALM (Application Lifecycle Management) at the centre of your strategy, that pushes you towards .NET, which is great for Enterprise development. If you split off the pure development tools from the ALM side, that gives more voice to the non-Enterprise developers, where .NET has less appeal.

However, a key issue not covered by Kissel is that Win32 development is in decline. That decline will accelerate once Vista and .NET Framework 3.0 become widely deployed (admittedly that will take a couple of years at least). Another factor is the continuing growth in web applications and rich internet (or "smart client") applications, for which Win32 is ill-suited. It would be tough for Borland to bet its future on a declining market.

Further, Kissel makes too much of how "The other big market player in native RAD Land, Microsoft, has just left the fields." That's true only up to a point. Microsoft has abandoned native code VB, but then again VB was never close to Delphi as a native RAD development tool; it did eventually get a native code compiler but always had big runtime dependencies and difficulty in making full use of the Windows API. In addition, Microsoft still has Visual FoxPro (more RAD than native) and Visual C++ (more native than RAD), so it hasn't altogether abandoned the field.

What's clear though is that Borland can't continue with a .NET strategy based on supporting .NET features a year later than Microsoft. And it has to make more of its native code tools - though it actually took a big step in that direction with Delphi 2006, which is excellent for Win32 work.

I feel a little bad here. I said some years ago that Borland should embrace .NET. Still, I did also say this:

However, and it is a big hesitation, to prosper with .Net Borland needs to do more than simply build a Delphi for .Net at its own rather leisurely pace. To succeed the company needs to capture and pursue a vision of what .Net can do; RAD for the Enterprise, .Net beyond Windows; or whatever.

At the time I was hoping Borland would get 100% behind Mono and come up with elegant cross-platform .NET tools. That has never happened; though perhaps it still could.


Re: Users plead with Borland to give up .NET

Posted 4027 days ago by Miguel de Icaza • • wwwReply

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).


Comments are closed

Recent posts

Users plead with Borland to give up .NET
IE7 to be released 18th October,...
If Microsoft doesn't use UAC, why...
Google's unsettling lack of direction
Vista security: now prove it

Powered by bBlog