Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Borland Linux Developer Survey 161

Posted by Hemos from the you-want-vote-it dept.
Borland is currently running a poll to test the demand from the Linux community for porting their development tools. What with the Code Warrior folks, and all the IDEs coming around, it's a good signal of interest in the community. As well, Inprise is looking to hire a Seniuor R&D Engineer (for porting Delphi), as well as a Linux Developer Relations Mgr.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Borland Linux Developer Survey More

Borland Linux Developer Survey

Comments Filter:

  • Slashdotted !!! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can't get to the site. Has it been slashdotted already ???
  • I very much want to see Delphi for Linux, and will buy it, UNLESS it uses Motif. That would turn me off to it like a light.

    With Motif, all executables will need to be statically linked, and nothing would be under 2 megs. That is REALLY BAD..... especially since most software will probably be distributed over the Internet.

    Qt would be a good choice *IF* you can work out a licensing deal with Troll Tech to allow commercial development with Delphi out of the box. This would be in everyone's interest - they should be willing to license it, since they'd get a royalty from every Delphi sale and gain a LOT of users.

    If you can't work out a deal with the Trolls, I recommend GTK, or maybe developing your own widget set (but please do open source it if you do that).

    Thanks
  • Oh come on... you shouldn't be using multiple inheritance anyway.

    Oh yeah, and WordStar is the best word processor ever written! I'm still more productive in it than I am in most GUI WPs. Sure, it's nothing fancy, but for text editing it's great. Really efficient once you learn the Ctrl codes for cursor movement and other functions.
  • I used to use Delphi when I was in middle school - it's really very nice for UI design. I haven't used it for 3-4 years, but a Linux port would be nice if it can turn out .o files ready for the linker. I could do the guts of a program in C with vi and gcc, use Delphi and its variant of Pascal for the interface (handy, since I've never really been good at building graphical interfaces), and link the results together.

    On the other hand, programs built this manner would be difficult to collaborate on or distribute, as you'd have to have Delphi to build or modify 'em. Unless Linux Delphi churned out code that could be built with gpc (is Gnu Pascal still being actively developed? Is it in a usable state?) without a copy of Delphi, it would only be useful for software that's distributed binary-only.
  • What I wouldn't give for just the Borland project management/build tool to replace GNU Make/Autoconf/Automake tools.

    A tool which actually did proper dependancies and did silly things like cache headers so dependancy checks didn't take so long.

    A tool which didn't require recursive execution which eats up needless CPU and RAM reparsing the same rules over and over and over and over.

    A tool which could actually do cross-directory dependancies easily and cleanly.

    A tool which did parallel and distributed builds correctly every time.

    A tool which actually understands the compilers and interpreters and understands distribution package files in a way as to know what programs are installed and what aren't correctly.

    A tool which doesn't require unnecessarily long human edited files :)

    Unfortunatly, working on primarily open source projects makes commercial tools pretty much worthless for this sort of thing. Sigh.

    --
  • Not like it was hard porting that server over from Solaris or anything.

    The day Microsoft ports any of its GUI-based tools over to Linux will be the day Slashdot goes in-freaking-sane.

  • Too late (Score:1)

    by chuck ( 477 )
    Some years ago, I would have been clamoring for Borland tools on Linux, because I really disliked the GNU tools. After a couple years' time, though, I've come to realize why the GNU tools are better. Sorry, Borland...
  • Posted by Reitzel:

    Screw Inprise. Years ago, Borland dropped their OS2 product like a hot potato and climbed directly in bed with Microsoft. Those of us who were servicing the (then) 20 million OS2 licenses were left stranded on the beach.

    I wouldn't use a Borland product if it meant I had to write code on clay tablets in cuniform.

  • Posted by Jeff Martin:

    It seems to be flooded right now with hits, I haven't been able to log in all day!
    I certainly want to use borland on Linux....it only makes sense.
  • What I would *really* like to see is Borland write a pre-compiler to translate standard C++Builder code to GCC compatible code. Most would be the same, but you'd need to handle the extra stuff C++Builder has, like the ability to define properties (they look like class members but act like methods, with the ability to do type checking, etc.)

    Then, of course, provide their world-class IDE, with *two-way* tools (the IDE generates code which you can edit, unlike most GUI builders).

    And include their huge component library, with pre-compiled components for drag-n-drop database access, FTP, HTTP, POP3, GUI Widgets, etc.

    If they get the compiler right, they should be able to (mostly) recompile their components to run on Linux. They could use winelib to help them do this easily (though that would give the apps a Windows look and feel).

    So, that's what I'd do if I were Borland (and what I hope they do).

    Warren E. Downs, Systems Engineer
    Advanced BusinessLink
  • I think it just makes good business sense for Borland to port Delphi and JBuiler to other platforms, they simply can't compete on Windows anymore outside of a few niches. That means linux


    On the other hand, the Free software community has done very well for itself in terms of development tools. I can't think of anything we're really lacking that Borland provides. Sure there are somethings but in general, there aren't too many if any development tasks you can't get done already. That leaves me wondering where Delphi, JBuilder, IBM's Visual Age compilers, etc.. all fit in to the linux infrastructure. It provides an attractive option for ISVs who demand support but most OSS/FS projects, if not all, will still use GCC.


    I would like to play with Delphi on linux, especially if it can build GTK+ or QT GUIs but I'm not sure I'd shell out the $200 for it and I can't say I know a lot of linux people who would.

  • Lets hope they don't do try to use Motif. Too many commercial shops make that mistake.
  • MMmh, I wrote a (cooperative) multitasking Minitel server with TPW 1.0 and M$ Windows 3.1 a while ago... I was using a 80286 16MHz and 4Mb memory at that time! (2Mb was a bit uncomfortable for devel, but worked).
    Sure, each new version (TPW 1.5, BPW 7.0, Delphi...) was more bloated than the previous one, but they definitely could do wonderful tools for not-so-powerful boxes at that time.

    Dunno if I would go back to any mono-platform devel tool, though.

  • Sorry to disappoint you but the Linux porting plan has been discussed in the company for quite a long time. This kind of decisions are not taken lightly or quickly.
    The MS announcement should be read for what it is, they paied for using our software patents ($100 million) and bought some stock. That's common practice in settlements like this. Please note that the "preferred stock" is a legal term and that MS doesn't have any representation in the board of directors. Our direction hasn't changed a bit since we closed the deal.

    Instead of listening to whispers :) let me said it loud and clear: we are going to build the best, most productive development tools for Linux because the time is right and because it's very exciting for us :).

    Take care,

    Paolo Ciccone
    JBuilder R&D
  • This is a major issue which must be addressed. Porting Delphi to Linux requires that: they pick a widgetset that
    • Is free with development libs
    • Commonly available on any Linux box
    • full-featured
    If they do pick Motif, then the product will most likely fail (even if they statically link their executables). The obvious choices are GTK [gtk.org] and QT [troll.no]. If they do use QT then would Delphi developers need to pay Troll in order to make commercial apps using Delphi, or would Inprise be the only party which needed to pay TrollTech?

    The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.

  • I seems you are right.
    Will try this weekend.
  • yep, it looks like once again a site as fallen to the mass flood of hits. Dammit, and I wanted to say yes to stuff form them. I love their developmet environment, and I thought Delphi wasn't bad either.
  • Well.... tried to go to the poll and the darn thing isn't working.

    Is Borland broke? Or is it the /. effect?
  • I will buy c++ builder for linux the minute it
    hits the shelves, in much the same way I have
    for windows, but this time i'll be even happier :)
  • >.they allow GUI Apps to be built for Linux using Qt or Java, depending on the *Builder product

    If I buy a commercial compiler it is because I
    want to be free to sell my code without having
    to reveal my source code to the world.

    Borland is well aware of our needs as software
    developpers and would not tie us to libraries
    that we can't use without either giving all the
    source away or paying huge prices for a license.

    As for using QT if you wish I fail to see why
    you couldn't do it. With Borland C++ I've always
    bought the source code of the libraries. Just
    rewrite the libraries to suit your needs.
  • I have Borland C++ for OS/2.

    Borland dropped support for OS/2 for
    political reasons.
    Borland's bread and butter lies with winblows
    and pissing off Microsoft by releasing an
    OS/2 version didn't help them getting support.

    Now is a different world with the government's
    lawsuit.
  • Speak for yourself. There are many of us who
    refuse to port software to Linux because it
    is too much work. Our bread and butter is
    on winblows whether or not we like it.

    The tools on Linux for the most part require
    that we release the source code which is
    completely out of the questions.


    As for Xemac :

    HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!
    HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

    I installed this and shit ....
    It has been removed not very long after
    the large vocabulary of swears that had to
    used. What a bloated piece of shit! I can say
    the X version is better than the console
    version but that's about it.

    I prefer a good IDE like Borland's idea.
    Actually I would love an IDE absolutely
    identical to that of Borland C++ 3.1 for DOS.

    I'd live with the one like on winblows as a
    second choice.

    Rhide is too unstable folks, not a valid
    choice, it won't even compile under SuSE 6.1
    anyhow. It kept crashing when I used in
    with Slackware, Redhat 4.2, 5.1 and 5.2

  • Somebody moderate this up - this is right on the money.

  • YES! (Score:1)

    by Rotten ( 8785 )
    Imagine the ammount of applications written in Delphi being available for linux?
    This would be a REAL boost on Linux and Delphi (of course), and Borland knows this.
    I like this, I really like this
  • We need to sing this on the rooftops.

    I am grateful that there are code monkeys out there that enjoy low-level programming. We are forever indebted to them, but . . .

    I don't thing my company is going to pay me to write device drivers or hack the kernel. They need rapidly developed, quality apps. Delphi has been an excellent tool to accomplish this, even with the limitations inherent to Win32.

    Delphi for Linux would help immensely in the push to the desktop and I would be the first one on my block to purchase it.

  • My pre-order will be in just as soon as they will take my money.
  • Seb writes:

    "Now I wonder what their current relationship with InterBase (Inprise?) is."

    'borland.com' is a division of Inprise; even before they brought back the name in this *corporate* sense, the *products* still used the old brand. They were and are 'Borland Delphi (etc), from Inprise', only now with an inserted 'from borland.com, a division of'.

    The middleware, Entera, Visibroker, and so on, is and was branded Inprise; they reserve the Borland name for the development tools.

    And InterBase is, at it has been for years, owned by InterBase Corp. (or Inc, whatever), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Inprise (formerly of Borland).


    "As far as I know, InterBase grew out of an independent team of programmers long ago before Borland came to scene. Or am I wrong?"

    Yes and no.

    Borland acquired InterBase with its buy-up of Ashton-Tate; you know, the guys behind dBase? It was a Borland product for a while, but got spun out into its own subsidiary long (a year, two?) before the name change to Inprise.

    So you're wrong, if you meant to imply that Borland bought out the independant gang *directly*; but you're right in that there *was* such a gang (ex-employees of something big -- DEC, perhaps?), that was bought up by Ashton-Tate. I remember a few years ago, when Borland dBase wasn't doing too well and everybody was saying how stupid it was of Borland to buy A-T, how some columnist (might have been John Dvorak, of all people) wrote that perhaps that didn't matter; that perhaps the secret crown jewel that Borland was *really* after was InterBase.

    Anyway, InterBase has kind of come full circle, in that it now is a corporation of its own again. Except that it's a subsidiary, of course.


    "This way or that way, Linux developers should really take a look into InterBase DBMS. BTW, they still offer (oldish) 4.0 for Linux free of charge."

    Yup! See my URL above? Yes, I *did* change it a few months back -- because IB moved the download! Before that, it pointed to where IB4/Linux was *then*; I must have had it for over a year now, altogether.


    "Combined with the open-sourced AOLserver (see previous Slashdot story) with AOLserver driver for InterBase, it can be helluva web/db application tool."

    Don't forget to go to http://www.photo.net/wtr/ and check out the whole -- freely downloadable, Open Source? -- interactive web site system by Philip Greenspun!



    Christian R. Conrad
    MY opinions, not my employer's - Hedengren, Finland.
  • One of the best ways for Linux to grow is to make it easy to author applications for the platform. With the RAD tools that Borland can provide, this would encourage much more development.

    Go vote!
  • There is no compiler that I know of that restricts
    you from selling source code written and tested
    with it, or the binaries that it compiles from
    that code.

    If you think that's the license for the GNU
    compiler GCC, you are mistaken.
  • >How about the original Turbo Pascal for CPM and then Turbo Pascal for DOS?

    How about it?: subscribe to the newsgroup comp.os.cpm, and there you'll find a fellow with a site that has TP/CPM, TP/CPM86, and a bunch else ready for download. CP/M ain't exactly dead yet, despite rumors to that effect.
    (Borland denies ever selling such a product now, it seems.)

  • Not to mention that standarization is very important in some corporate environments. I imagine it would be much easier to add/replace developers if you had a standard IDE system rather than one or two guys custom emacs macros and shell scripts. This might impair on an individual developer's flexibilty, but allows management to treat developers more like resources and reduces the amount job-security-enhancing voodoo involved.
    --
  • Hello? Remember Borland C++ for OS/2? It was pretty damn good in my book. Still is for that matter, I just don't use OS/2 that much any more... They are definately not a Windows only shop.
  • Have you looked into VDKBuilder? It's coming along
    very well (just passed the one year anniversary mark - congrats Mario & team!). It's all opensourced, and is based upon a library (VDK) that is similar to Borlands OWL/VCL (hence then name). It's got an editor, project manager, widget inspector, and GUI builder. The only thing it lacks up to this point is a good bugger (which I'm sure is on the way). Why not give it a try? http://www.guest.net/homepages/mmotta/vdkbuilder/i ndex.htm
  • Delphi is one of the larger Windows IDE's.

    How would you like to be able to write one program to work in Windows and on Linux?
  • Visual Slick Edit does that. It even looks like MS Developer Studio. Very cool product ( well, the fact that they used Motif is not so cool but the rest is very nice )

  • Borland deserves some credits from us Linux folks. I've always had good times with Borland tools - from Turbo C coding in old DOS days till these days.

    Now I wonder what their current relationship with InterBase (Inprise?) is. As far as I know, InterBase grew out of an independent team of programmers long ago before Borland came to scene. Or am I wrong?

    This way or that way, Linux developers should really take a look into InterBase DBMS [interbase.com]. BTW, they still offer (oldish) 4.0 for Linux free of charge [interbase.com]. Combined with the open-sourced AOLserver (see previous Slashdot story) with AOLserver driver for InterBase [lavsa.com], it can be helluva web/db application tool.

  • A) Why would someone want to work for a company that has bad management, 'hire & fire' policy and no compiler guy working on the Delphi compiler? (The last Delphi Compiler Engineer left a few weeks ago).

    You worked there for more than a year, you tell us. If you went in for the sort of unsubstantiated whiteanting you display here, small wonder they gave you the bullet, and deservedly so. Take your word for it? NO CHANCE.

    B) The Delphi IDE has no architecture at all! It is one big mess and it will be difficult to port to any other system. Good luck!

    I guess I can agree that the IDE has suffered from creeping featurism along with most of its competitors. Still, it works well enough.

    I guess there would be some merit in starting the IDE afresh for Linux with a reduced set of features - after all, the main benefits of Delphi are the component and object pascal features.

    I challenge you to put your money where your mouth is and join up with either the Lazarus/VDK project, or the Megido project, both of whom are attempting to produce Open Source ports of Delphi for Linux using the Free Pascal compiler and GTK+. Prove that the problems you had were caused by Borland and not by you.

    (I'd go for Lazarus myself - the Megido guys can't even keep up with offers of help on their mailing lists).
  • IBM is already offering Visual Age for Java betas for Linux.
  • Not [everyone needs|has the ability|necessarially wants] to write device drivers. Your elitism is showing.

    Corporate programmers need tools for their platform of choice. Interoperability is less of an issue. This promotes linux in the Corporate world. This is a Good Thing (TM) because a bigger market means more Linux-friendly SW and HW to choose from.

    Not everyone is a free software fanatic. I [have paid & will pay] for quality software on my OS of choice.

    Now go away.
  • I'm trying but they seem to be slashdoted !!
    I think this would be great. It's a few years since I use Borland C++ but I remember having a good time with it.
  • Which I guess means that their Sr. Product Manager
    can't spell the word "definitely". Is "Sr."
    short for "Sen~or"? Maybe he should have just
    ended his response with "D00d!"

    :-P
  • Actually, it was C++ for OS/2 (which I still have.)

    The other port was Turbo Pascal for the Mac, which they did long ago.

    The main problem with Borland (or any other vendor) porting tools to Linux, or developing tools for Linux, is that so many here seem to think that the Linux/Unix way is the only way, and won't buy the tools after they lobby for the vendor to produce.

    Historically, non-Windows has meant unprofitable. As large as the computer industry is, the developer subset is much smaller, and the Linux developer subset may not support any commercial tools.

    The execrable state of Linux installation, configuration, and documentation, all speak to the reality that Linux is a cult system, best suited to geeks with Unix in their backgrounds.

    Oh, and before you flame me for that, I am a geek with almost no Unix in my background, but who wants almost desperately to move away from Windows. Linux has been my first pick for an alternative, and the complaints I make are based on a couple of months of intensely disappointing experience.
  • I would be thrilled to see Delphi for Linux, or C++ Builder for Linux, or JBuilder for Linux. Better still, I hope to see all of them, over time.

    After all these years of language and IDE development, it should be painfully obvious to anyone who reads /. that there are many paths to production of useful software. There are those for whom the low level tweaking is the holy grail, and others who lust after RAD, and there are as many opinions as there are developers.

    The single most valuable lesson we should all take from Windows is that freedom to choose is essential. This is what MS seek to eliminate, as they strive to control the desktop; it's what Linux strives to return, as it competes with Windows. And, it's what BeOS also offers, in another different flavor.

    What I want most is to be able to develop solutions which are not portable (portability is one of the most misused and abused terms in our industry) but are platform agnostic. I want to be able to present users with a hybrid system in which each PC is used for what it does best, and the software environment presents a toolset which is consistent in its presentation on each platform.

    The answer to this will not come from Wine, or any other emulator, but from development tools which make make such design and development economically practical.

    Language isn't the issue: Borland can offer C++ or Pascal or Java, all of which they already support on Windows.

    In the world in which programming is done for more than a hobby, productivity is a major concern, and Borland tools have kept me more productive in Windows than any others. I have no doubt that they will do the same for me under Linux. I am impatient to have them.

    What excites me is not becoming intimate with the inner workings of the OS or gcc, or egcs, but the prospect of producing highly effective and stable applications in a short timeframe. That's what RAD is about, and RAD is what Borland's tools are about.
  • And I know from my own recent conversation with David Intersimone that Borland is serious about Linux. I was only surprised to see notice of a poll so soon.

    I hope you will get the URL problem fixed. Soon!
  • And besides the boatload of work saved, and your honor, the customers would be well served by having platform freedom.

    Some of the die-hard gcc folks tend to overlook that what promotes Linux growth is good for all.
  • Borland has announced that JBuilder is being rewritten in Java, so it will soon be platform independent.

    On their site, you can also see that they will preview JBuilder for Linux at their developers conference later this month.
  • C++ Builder has the same IDE, and presumably you consider that C++ sucks less?

    Multiple inheritance sucks beyond any other language issue. It is not necessary, and mostly provides yet another way for things to be buggy.

    Java style is best left to Java. Let each tool do its best in native form.

    Container classes have been implemented in third party components for Delphi.

    As to Eiffel... well, that would give them a truly no-sale tool, wouldn't it? Any commercial software company needs customers to survive. From whence would customers appear for Eiffel? All indications are that it is an interesting intellectual exercise (as is Oberon) but no risk of becoming a popular tool.

    The Borland IDE supports more than the old Wordstar style interface. Brief and Epsilon mappings are also supported. Perhaps they could be persuaded to add Emacs, for those of you who appreciate that abomination. See? Each of us hates something.
  • After having spent years in Delphi, I find the gcc alternative depressing. Back to doing everything the hard way, and spending an inordinate amount of time on GUI construction, which is, after all, NOT the reason we write apps.

    The beauty of Delphi/CBuilder is the freedom they give to refocus on the real purpose of the app: getting some tasks done. In the best of all worlds, the GUI is simply a nice way of packaging a good tool so that it is easier to use. In Windows (and in X) the GUI management coding is tedious in the extreme. And there are way too many calls to remember.

    In Delphi I routinely construct interfaces which would drive me crazy without such an effective tool. Without Delphi, I would not have ventured into developing Windows apps at all, but would have refocused on embedded apps.

    My checkbook is ready, Borland. Bring on the tools!
  • Linux is a strong OS with a painful lack of productive tools. The *nix environment has always been a hacker's wet dream, and I'm sure it's great fun, but many of us are looking for killer tools which will allow us to write useful and solid apps quickly. And these days, that's the only way to do it, in the commercial market.
  • Delphi will be great on Linux. C++ Builder already supports MFC, but that doesn't tie it to Windows. In fact, the entire VCL for C++ Builder is in Object Pascal.

    As much as I hate the C language, I am willing to move to it, if it is all that is supported on Linux. Life would be much better, however, with choices.

    My main concern with Linux is for my own productivity. Having used Delphi since it came out, I will hate developing in any language which does not give me such a strong tool.
  • Your comment goes beyond mere flaming. If you can only lash out and make unsubstantiated comments, you would do well to keep your own counsel, instead.

    I can take Borland's word on their future plans, as I have history with their product. Taking your word, even for where you may have worked, much less in what capacity, would be a leap of faith. And you offer nothing on which such faith might be built.
  • We gotta go to their site and tell em we want it!
  • Frontpage for Linux? As in, the editor, not just the extensions for Apache? Got a URL?
  • Yes, it's been slashdotted.
    Not too surprising, tho ...
  • dBase is being actively developed by dBASE, inc.

    www.dbase2000.com [http] is their website.
  • As much as I hate Pascal the language, I really think that Delphi offers the most important contribution to Linux. Especially if you can trivially port Windows Delphi apps to Linux! That would be unbelievably great, but also quite possible, as Delphi is reasonably removed from the direct Win32 API. C++ builder will soon be in MFC-land, so that would REALLY have to diverge from the Windows version. JBuilder 3 is coming, but written in Java, and it will be competing against VisualAge from IBM. Delphi is the truly unique product out of this bunch.
    Oh yeah, and those of you who mentioned using Qt should check out www.kdevelop.org. KDevelop is still experimental, but actually quite good: Visual dialog builder, complete project management, class browser, integrated debugger, etc. And you don't have to use it for or with KDE if you don't want to.
    --JZ
  • I sent in the story a few days ago also. Ah well.
    I also agree with the other post under this parent about several issues:

    1) I get paid to write Delphi code. Not linux apps. HOWEVER, if our linux server ever went down, we'd all have to go home :)

    2) Compared to the learning curve of C++, Object Pascal (the language behind Delphi) is a breeze to learn. Combined with a good Visual Component Library, Delphi apps are small, fast, and easy to maintain.

    3) If Borland/Inprise is really serious about Linux development tools, I suspect JBuilder will be first out of the gate. It's gotten high praise from many developers and it was the main driving force behind the MS + Inprise deal a few months ago. I suspect that MS's J++ tool will be getting some serious modifications after the influx of Java technology from Inprise.
  • Well IBM payed Borland to develop Borland C++ for OS/2. The 2.0 version didn't suck big time like the previous ones, and it was the last. Inprise and non-Windows development????? BAH!!!!
    Also..haven't MS bought some Inprise stock???
  • I agree. I'll probably still use (X)Emacs with gcc/egcs/gdb, etc. But there are many Windoze developers who are intimidated by the traditional GNU evelopment environment, or simply don't want to take the time to learn it. For these peple, getting high profile, high quality development tools they're familiar with from the Windoze world will be a great boon for them, and for Linux.

    The last somewhat decent argument Microsoft has against Linux is a dearth of available applications. Anything that helps fill this gap is a good thing. And for Linux's traditional geek following, the fact that Borland has always made great software means that they're starting from a position of respect. I've always considered Borland's tools and applications to be far superior to Microsoft's, and seeing Borland lose to Microsoft's inferior products is one of the things that made me grow to hate the whole Windows culture. (And don't give me that tired illogical standards argument.)

    Finally, if Borland brings its RAD tools to Linux, the corporate development world will have one more great reason to use Linux. Lots of corporate IT shops use RAD tools such as Delphi and (ptui!) Visual Basic. Delphi is far superior to Visual Basic, so it's quite fitting that it should become Linux's RAD 3.5GL :-)
  • I for one would love to see Borland port their tools to Linux, but if they don't (or until they do), people may like to check out RHIDE [tu-chemnitz.de], which provides a similar thing to Borland TC.
    Oh yeah, Borland site is still /.'ed.
  • I think gcc is great as compilers go, I like the Borland IDE, just so longas it lets me keep using gcc as the compiler

    Wishful thinking?

  • There are so many OpenSource IDEs on their way and gcc is pretty much the standard compiler. I guess it would help those who need to port between Windows and Linux.

    Desktop functionality would be a read plus and I figure that porting between desktops is probably much easier than porting between Operating Systems anyway. I am not sure I would use something propietary though (no flames please, use whatever software you please).

    Besides, unless Borland change thier product non-trivially, I don't think Delphi or C Builder would blend well with linux anyway.

    Oh, before I posted this, there were no comments so I am going to make a prediction. NO, I don't think this is to get back at Microsoft. It is simply a business exploring a new market. Microsoft will too (in fact, they already have frontpage for Linux).

    --

  • ftp://ftp.microsoft.com /Products/frontpage/fp40.linux.tar.Z [microsoft.com]

    I downloaded it out of curiousity, to see what it says in the README files. Took a LONG time to download. Not going to install it though, I don't trust Microsoft enough to let them loose on my system. Besides, I don't think I would trust any binaries that big unless it was RPM or something.

    --

  • Yeah, I thought so too. Kinda like the integrating the GUI with OS thing.

    --

  • pff. Delphi as a language sucks rocks.

    English as a language sucks rocks. It doesn't have a word for hottentottententententoonstelling and like Delphi it has no container classes.

    Next time try to distinguish between language and product. Oh, and sign your name. :-P
  • and missed your submissions. Obviously he didn't find one. He can afford one now that got all that money from anover.


    I'm sorry for the convoluted tie-in to prevent off topic moderation, but I could'nt resist. :))
  • I'd love to see a Delphi/Linux. But let's face it: Borland has a terrible track record porting their software anywhere. They are a Windows-only shop.

    Turbo Pascal for OS/2 anyone? I can't remember any other non-Windows product from Borland. (except for Interbase, which was Unix-based when they bought it)

  • Borland C++ for OS/2 was the one I meant of course. There never was a thing like TP for OS/2.

    Funny thing: Borland never managed to produce a Turbo Pascal for OS/2, while two guys (in Germany I believe) wrote a full clone of Turbo Pascal with IDE and Delphi compatibility.

  • I'll never forgive them for killing off brief. 'tis the one true editor (for me)! okay so xemacs comes close. But it aint the same!
    Since there are so many other compilers/IDEs/tools what are they going to do to make it worth buying?
    All very well voting yes, but if the Linux community doesnt put its money where its mouth is. They (and others) wont repeat it....

    My tuppence ha'penny worth.
    Beth
  • I was at JavaOne and saw the demo of
    JBuilder for Solaris... Quite cool...
    Almost the entire thing is written in
    java (unlike JB3 for win).
    And really good performace.

    Once the JDK 1.2 for linux firms up
    they should be able to port it
    rather quickly.

  • Sure I use gcc & ecgs because they're free, but they're hardly start-of-the-art as far as optimizing goes. If borland released a cheap optimizing C++ compiler for Linux, I'd sure be interested.
  • ...they allow GUI Apps to be built for Linux using Qt or Java, depending on the *Builder product

    ... (Not a deciding factor but a nice thing to have) they create a system that allows programming for Win32 as well. One IDE for multiple platforms.

    ...they keep the product up to par with their Win counterparts.

    I use CBuilder 3, JBuilder 2, and I am trying to find a copy of JB3 locally. They all are top notch rapid development enviroments that do not intrude with special tags in the code or any nonsense like that (Unlike Symantec Visual Cafe 3...)

    RB
  • has anyone got managed to get the netshow port to play .asf files? if you have please email me.
    it tells me that it needs a codec i cannot seem to find.
  • They did port NetShow to linux. It was a piece of crap, but it worked.
  • I'm pretty sure multiple inheritance was introduced in Delphi 3.

    I prefer interfaces myself...

    Also I have done little work in Delphi lately, exactly because most of my development is now done on Linux. If and when Delphi/Linux comes out, I'm sure to take a look at it.

    I specially appreciated that they ask on the survey what widget set we'd prefer!
  • "We don't need it we already have gcc". Well, then we don't need a car as bicycle serves our transportation needs just fine. Surprisingly most people, judging by comments in this thread, apparently have no idea what Delphi/C++ Builder is but still feel a need to comment on the subject.

    My personal opinion on this(somebody who programs Unix and NT for a living using all kinds of tools like C++, Perl, Smalltalk, Delphi and Java):
    Delphi port is the most significant Linux port there is. Netscape and Oracle ports are nothing comparing to push this would give to Linux. There is simply nothing out there that gives comparable performance, convenience and productivity. Not even close. I'd give my money to Borland any day for this thing.

  • By all means give Inprise a piece of your mind, but unless you love spam don't give them your address. (They flirt with the RBL [vix.com] constantly.)
  • A lot of Java Developers would love to develop on Linux, but the solid tools don't seem to be there.

    Java2 support is important for Linux.
  • I have been a Delphi developer for years. Having recently tried C on Unix & Linix and discovered what a pain it is to create GUIs, I would fully support Borland tools on Linux. This could be an extremely useful step in getting more applications to the Linux desktop.

    Oh yeah, my opinion is that the link to the site is not correct. I am not sure that the much fabled /. effect has anything to do with it.
  • You should maybe try C++ Builder in that case. It will give you the features you want and the GUI.

    You know, the choice of a programming language is like a religion; personal. No one is give you crap about the language you choose, right ?
  • C++ Builder and Delphi allow you to install your own editor and integrate into the IDE. A popular one is CodeRush from eagle software.

    www.eagle-software.com
  • Yes, in a heart beat!
  • Microsfot paid Borland a lot of money to keep form getting the hell sued out of them. The got caught using Borland tools for Windows development. (Basically using Borlands tools against them). MS realizes that Borlands' development tools are better than theirs. MS also paid for the rights to use Inprises n-tier tools (MIDAS) since they support multiplatform OSs already.


    Borland/Inprise is still very much an independent company. MS did not purchase any voting stock, just common.

    I recently talked to an area sales rep for Inprise. His statement was to the effect,"There is nothing like making your arch enemy give you a lot of money".

  • Yeah!!!! Go Borland Go!!! Geiben zie mir meine Delphi!
  • >>is Gnu Pascal still being actively developed?

    Actually there is the MEGIDO project being done by some programmers in Isreal. Sorry, I forgot the web address.

    They are basing it on FreePascal and hope to be Delph2 (or 3) Object Pascal complient, not counting the Win32 stuff. How they would run the VCL is anybodys guess.
  • InterBase is a fine product, but has seen little in the way of innovation the last few years. Its SQL support is arguably not top-notch. Last time I checked (5.0), to deal with BLOb data you had to use its proprietary SQL extensions, much as is provided with MSSQL, but at least MSSQL allows binary inserts through ANSI SQL. (Um, if you're familiar with IB and know a better way, please let me know!) In a lot of ways InterBase feels antiquated, but at least it has got a friendly price tag.

    Alexander Staubo
    earlybird@mop.no
  • MS and Inprise/Borland announce joint partnership agreement, cash infusion, 10% of stock changes hands. Theory: MS invests in Inprise to get a foothold in the Linux development world since they're not willing to lose face in these times of heavy focus on Windows 2000.

    Prediction: In a year MS buys the rest of Inprise (or just the Borland part) and suddenly has a full lineup of Linux development tools in its hands.

    It's MS' secret plan to develop Linux tools without MS actually doing it themselves! As part of this, Borland makes their C++ tools compatible with VC++ (notice the part about MFC mentioned in the press release) with some kind of compatibility layer, and MS secretly ports their business apps -- like Office -- to Linux. NT/Win2K dies. MS offers migration tools and an emulated environment (can you say "VMware"?) for legacy NT/Win2K customers. Everybody's happy.

    (I'm not crying "Conspirary!" here. I'm crying "Yeah! Go for it!")

    Alexander Staubo
    earlybird@mop.no
  • Uh oh. I just got this stuff after trying to get at the survey form for ages:

    Internal Server Error 500

    -------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
    Exception: EDBEngineError
    Message: An error occurred while attempting to initialize the Borland Database Engine (error $2A04)

    That's what you get you use your own inferior database engine. For what it's worth, the BDE has always been one of Borland's shoddiest and most redundant -- given the existence of ODBC -- products. Nothing like Delphi, for example. Let's hope they won't port the BDE to Linux as well. (*Shudder*)

  • Don't agree. Notice how Inprise and MS entered a significant partnership not long ago -- 8-10 months ago if I'm not too mistaken -- when Inprise agreed to a settlement in their case against MS regarding the employee drain (Anders Hejlsberg and Paul Gross and others being lured into joining MS). Inprise dropped charges, they entered a strategic agreement that resulted in MFC licensing for C++Builder 4, and a whole lotta goodwill. Now this stock exchange thing.

    What's this patent infringement suit you're talking about though?

    MS' goal is not just to dominate the OS market, but to dominate the mainstream software market, which they are able to dominate more easily by being in control of the OS market. If they had devtools, Office etc. but not Windows, they would be an inferior position, and certainly not in control.

    While a closed-source "Delphi for Linux" (or whatever) would be less of a boon than an open-source one, think about all the products being opened up these days: QuickTime, Netscape/Mozilla, AOLServer, MacOS/Darwin, the list goes on and on. Open Source has become a "hit". By the time Inprise is ready to get their Linux stuff out the door, they'll have seen the light, too. Or, if they haven't, they'll open the source out of sheer embarrassment of being the last closed-source software vendor left. ;-)
  • Patents: Good grief. You have to wonder how anybody should be able to develop any kind of software these days without bumping into one of Inprise's patents.

    Thanks for the info. I guess I missed the part about the patent infringment stuff.

    > Did Borland sell out or lose out? I think not!

    I didn't say anything about "selling out". We're not talking about some kind of Rebel Force here. Inprise/Borland is a software company. They can partner with anyone they like. Lately they've been MS' beds; all I did was outline a possible direction for them (ie., MS partners with Inprise because it gives them an escape road to Linux development) given this.

    > Looks like they are heading in this direction already - see http://www.borland.com/techvoyage/jediinitiative.h tml

    Nah. At least not now. They're woefully under-coordinated, and has been since the inception. Besides, the JEDI are about "open source", but rather about helping Inprise translate C header files to ObjectPascal. (Oddly enough Inprise could have integrated their C/C++ front end compiler into Delphi and the problem would have been resolved, and JEDI totally redundant.)

  • Take a look at :
    http://www.inprise.com/about/hr/99083.html

    "Senior engineering position responsible for research and development of major subsystems of Delphi for Linux. Work with the entire team to create Delphi for Linux."

    Also the following was posted on the Borland news server a couple of days ago :

    The job offer is definately not a joke . In fact it's not the only job available for Linux at Borland, there are more available right now including for C/C++ on Linux. I wouldn't go so far as to say that we are working on things "in secret", but I will say that we are not yet prepared to make any public announcements. Stay tuned...

    Michael Swindell
    Sr. Product Manager
    Borland Developer Solutions, Inprise Corporation
  • (For some reason, slashdot made me anonymous with the original post. Oh well.)

    Yes, Turbo C. I didn't much care for Pascal then, and don't now. (I also went to UC San Diego and thus had access to UCSD Pascal, making price somewhat moot. there.)

    It was the first cheap C compiler for the PC. That was what was important to me, at least, and judging from Borland's sales at the time, many others as well. Up until then, C seemed to be mostly a big-iron thing (relatively speaking).

    One might note that their fortunes went down as their price went up, though that is most likely coincidental. It did light a fire under other vendors, though. Borland wasn't alone at that $99 price for long.
  • I was wondering why this didn't start the sallivation. Lots of companies using Delphi could dump Windows like the bad habit it is.
  • Yeah, me too - submitted it yesterday but not a peep. IMHO it's interesting to me as I am a paid Win/Delphi programmer interested Linux. I'd say that a lot of Slashdotters are in similar positions.

    Iteresting points here are:
    1) Borland R&D is moving from R to D of a full toolset for Linux (Java, CBuilder, Delphi)
    2) An new product development & hiring that starts soon after a big cash infusion cannot be a coincidence. This is most likely financed with Microsoft's money.
    3) If I write an open source, free, GPL'd program, what use is that if you can't compile it without a closed-source, paid-for, proprietary compiler?
    4) Even though Delphi rocks (and is IMHO, and the HO of the rest of the programmers here, a *great* language), what market penetration is it likely to get in the presence of good, stable, free C++ compilers.
    5) How much commonality between Win/Delphi and Linux delphi can there be? Same IDE - yes. Same language - yes. Same non-visual classes - yes. Same Visual component library - I think not. Porting Delphi apps from Win to Linux won't be a no-brainer.
  • > Prediction: In a year MS buys the rest of Inprise

    I very much doubt it. This may be wishfull thinking, but I'd like to see this as a scenario of Borland using MS's own money against them.

    Borland's goals are not MS's goals. MS's goals, as far as I can see, are to dominate the OS market, and thereby extend that into domination of all other software markets. Borland's goal, IMHO is to gain share in the the development tools market. In this they compete with MS, against MSVC, VB, etc. In as much as Borland tools make windows apps which sell windows OS licences, they are partners with MS.

    I do not think that MS put Borland up to this. I think thier customers did. The way I read it, MS paid over a lot of money to avoid a long and costly patent infrigement suit. They have little control over Borland.

    Much as I like Delphi and use it daily, I am still nervously questioning the possible results of closed-source development environments on Linux.


  • Sheesh. so many people post here a "Inprise is M$'s bitch now" rubbish because they don't even know the basic facts of the matter they are discussing. To find out about the patent infringement matter that lead (amongst other things) to the last Inprise/MS deal, check out http://www.inprise.com/about/press/1999/inprise_ms .html
    "Microsoft also paid Inprise $100 million for the rights to use Inprise-patented technology in Microsoft products and to settle a number of long-standing patent and technology licensing issues. "

    I believe from old threads on threads on nntp:forums.borland.com/borland.public.delphi.non- technical that Borland held some basic and embarrassing software patents (spits over left shoulder at the mention of the concept) . Go to the patent database at http://164.195.100.11/netahtml/search-bool.html and enter and enter query Inprise in Assignee Name OR Borland in Assignee Name to find out more.

    Or just consider this bit of an old post that I dug up on Deja:

    > Well, there was one key phrase in the news release (which probably
    >explains why the MS site is silent on this deal) and that is "to settle
    >outstanding patent and licensing issues". A little spelunking in the patent
    >listings reveals some interesting stuff. It seems that Borland has a patent
    >on fly-over hints, and RAD two-way tools (was assigned to Borland just
    >yesterday it looks like) among other things.

    >One thing that really struck me
    >is that several years ago, Borland got a patent on a property-method-event
    >programming environment for "context-free" components IN STANDARD C++. This
    >sounds very much like COOL. And then of course there are all the spreadsheet
    >patents that Borland holds, which almost read like a functional spec for
    >Excel.


    Why do you think MS gave Borland wads of dough? Because they had to much cash and wanted to spead the wealth!?!? I repeat, MS's options in this matter were
    1) Pay up, cover up, and save face with licensing agreements and handshakes
    2) 2) Go to court, get bad publicity and pay up anyway.

    Did Borland sell out or lose out? I think not! They had to promise to support the next generation of MS's windows technologies. Like they weren't going to do so anyway just to keep a competitive advantage. What, was MS actually scared that Borland would pull out of the Windows market and sell only UNIX dev tools instead?!?

    > MS' goal is not just to dominate the OS market, but to dominate the mainstream software market,
    > which they are able to dominate more easily by being in control of the OS market

    Agreed, I tried to say that, sorry if it didn't come across. Embrace and extend all the way.


    > While a closed-source "Delphi for Linux" (or whatever) would be less of a boon than an open-source one,
    > think about all the products being opened up these day

    > open the source out of sheer embarrassment of being the last closed-source software vendor left

    One can but hope. Maybe we'll end up with the VCL being open-source (Source shipw with Delphi already), with Borland coordinating the fixes and extensions. Looks like they are heading in this direction already - see http://www.borland.com/techvoyage/jediinitiative.h tml
  • > I guess I can agree that the IDE has suffered
    > from creeping featurism along with most of
    > its competitors. Still, it works well enough.

    Hm, I'm not so sure of that. The Delphi IDE has in delphi 4 been the buggiest part of the whole system. Even after the third patch it's not quite right.

    This is s good indicator of achitecture problems in the current release.


  • Please, and as soon as possible Borland!

    I just spent a year writing a cutting edge app for my industry in Delphi for the Win32 OS. If I could compile a Linux version of this, it could save me a whole boatload of work, not to mention my honor.
  • Right. A language is always as strong as the library you use. And the VCL is strong. I was developing 2 years under Delphi when I first met Visual C++ and the MFC. Pure Horror. GUI-Programming at its worst. Hope I never have to touch that again. (Hm. Seems like the poll hits its target.)
  • You should look into Crisp, which is the Brief Editor available for UNIX and Windoze.
    http://www.crisp.com

    Cheers!

Slashdot Top Deals

The use of anthropomorphic terminology when dealing with computing systems is a symptom of professional immaturity. -- Edsger Dijkstra

Close