Slashdot Mirror


Borland Releases Kylix 2

Tal Cohen writes "Borland Kylix 2 is now available. Most new features are geared at Enterprise-level developers; the Open edition is still available for free download. The CLX (cross-platform component library) is covered under both GNU and Borland's license." The new features list is interesting - a fair number of buzzwords, but it also looks like they are supporting a lot of the new stuff. The white papers have some interesting topics - including gcc vs. Kylix.

10 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. Maybe too late by lekter1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think it's too late for Borland. Maybe two years before ...

    But now I think it's too late. Kdevelop and the recently released kdestudio 3.0 gold is playing hard.

    --

    greetings,
    lekter
    http://www.hispacluster.org
  2. QT Embedded support? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Does this have support for generating QT Embedded applications?

    If so, then you can write PDA applications for the Sharp device in the previous story using Kylix/Delphi/Pascal++.

    Not that any non-Delphi person would want to, in my opinion ;)

    Of course, I am basing all this on the assumption that Kylix actually currently uses QT as the base GUI component set, via its own intermediary toolkit abstraction. If I am wrong here, please correct me.

  3. Never mind that these are the guys... by uradu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    that introduced the $49 IDE back in 84, and have consistently turned out more standards-compliant C++ compilers than you know who. And your tastes obviously don't count for much if they lead you to that opinion about Object Pascal. It's still considered by many one of the most advanced and elegant natively compiled languages around. OTOH Forte is certainly not considered the greatest IDE by many. But then again, those are YOUR tastes.

  4. delphi portability? by juraj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Has someone of you used this to port Delphi app to
    Linux? I had a nice free LGPL-covered application, that
    I wanted to compile using kylix open edition. But a lot of things are different.I see a lot of units, like QDialog, QForm, etc. under Linux, but they're counterparts in Windows are Dialog, Form, etc. So is there any sourcecode compatibility? Is there a tool for doing this?

    1. Re:delphi portability? by robinjo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I've ported a pretty big non-gui app. It was pretty easy. Moving from Delphi's old sockets to Indy was the biggest thing. Then I just wrote higher class classes, wrapped all the Windows api stuff in those and made a WinStuff-unit out of them. A similar one for Linux. Then some ifdefs for units and done. Now the project compiles without changes in Delphi 5 and Kylix 1.

      I hear it's even easier with Delphi 6 but haven't felt like upgrading yet.

  5. Kylix isn't Klyx by Tha_Zanthrax · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They won't be sued. Kylix and Klyx are completly different apps. The name Kylix isn't stolen from Klyx. Like Delphi is also the name of a greek goddess, a Kylix is a greek fruitbowl of some sort.

  6. Measuring developer use of OSS by pubjames · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It has always been common knowledge that a key to Microsoft's dominance is making things easy for programmers so that they develop for the Windows platform. Is it just me has there been a real drop-off of interest by developers in all things Microsoft?

    I remember there was a time about five years ago when most developers wouldn't even consider developing for anything other than Windows technologies and developer's magazines reflected that. These days, however, I see very little excitement about Microsoft technologies, for instance, I don't see lot of enthusiasm amongst developers about .Net and C#. Surely with Windows being the dominant platform, and .Net being Microsoft's new technical strategy, you'd expect some excited discussion about it amongst developers, but it's just not happening.

    This is just a feeling I have, and I have been trying to think of a way to quantify it, if nothing else to prove to myself that this sea-change is actually occurring and not just because I now take my information from different sources. The simple metric I have come up with is this - the number of times a word occurs on Google:

    Linux - 30,100,000
    Microsoft - 20,100,000

    This crude metric seems to suggest that Linux has 10m more pages than all of Microsoft's products put together. Seeing as Microsoft has such a dominant position in the desktop space and is still much more of a household name than Linux, I think this is quite a clear demonstration that there is a lot more material about Linux out there than about Microsoft's products.

    This came as a suprise:

    "Linus Torvalds" - 640,000
    "Bill Gates" - 649,00

    I would have expected Bill Gates (who's a household name) to occur a lot more than Linus.

    This is also suprising:

    "Internet Explorer" - 2,730,000
    Mozilla - 2,730,000

    "Linux developer" - 20,600
    "Windows developer" - 12,200

    Is it just me, or do these figures suggest that Microsoft should be very worried indeed?

    1. Re:Measuring developer use of OSS by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not so much a lack of interest in windows as a focus on the web. The majority of software development nowadays (judging by job postings, which indicate growth) is 2 or 3 tier client-server stuff with a web interface.

      MS has the worst web server technologies, period. Nobody in their right mind wants to run IIS for a large commercial site, it's too vulnerable to DoS/hacks. Apache on Win32 would fix this but people who are timid enough to run Windows as an internet server are going to be scared to death of the prospect of software that doesn't give them the option of running to mommy (read: tech support) when it breaks.

      Also, NT/2k x86 machines don't scale enough to handle the load of a high traffic web site. Load balancing (LocalDirectors, etc.) helps, but why fool with a room full of 1 or 2 processor Xeons when you can buy one really expensive Sun chassis and have room to grow for years without going to the trouble of integrating a new server into the network? Not to mention that x86 machines don't run so well when you try to implement failover stuff like redundant power supplies and hotswap drives on their bus.

      Last but not least, NT doesn't run EJB very well. If you want to get performance out of EJB, which is the current buzzword-compliant technology for large-scale software projects, you need a Sun box, period. I'm convinced that Sun and IBM are conspiring to cripple Java on Windows, which is just fine with me.

      In most cases, the only necessary MS-based piece I've seen in recent software development is the browser.

      MS may have the browser market tied up (with good reason, IE is nice now and XP, I hate to say it, is a great desktop OS), but they've already written a browser and have said under penalty of perjury that they'll give it away for free. They're in the process of eating their lunch on the server side in the big-ticket markets, which is where all the important stuff happens anyway.

      Stop worrying :)

  7. Give me C++ any day by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 4, Interesting

    > And just what is wrong with Pascal?

    Not trolling or meaning to start a "holy war", as this is just a personal opinion:

    - Declarations are backwards, due to the awkward grammer: name type
    Compared to the more logical C/C++ way: type name

    - The distinction between functions and procedures (the language sports an artifical difference.) The lack of parenthesis in the declaration make it difficult to quickly visually spot functions.

    - Operators, or the lack of them (no bit shifts, scope operator, namespaces?) i.e. := for assign? Just give me the dam equal sign already! :)

    - Too wordy. { } are don't clutter my code whitespace, like 'begin' 'end' do.

    In short, I just hate how the language looks.

    It's the same as a person liking one spoken language over another. Sure they both can explain concepts, but which one is more compact, and is "fluent" for the person?

    Pascal is a great teaching language, and Delphi is very impressive (Borland has always had lightning fast compiles on their Pascal languages, due to the grammar.) But I'd rather take a language I hate less (C/C++) then one that gives me a grammer that I hate (Pascal & sons.)

    I like the multiparadigm support of C++.
    i.e. procedural, object orientated, and generic programming paradigms.

    For me, Pascal++ is just plain wrong, but if you're productive at using it, hey, more power to you!

    Cheers

  8. Re:Borland again... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You truly are clueless, aren't you? This isn't about the average slashdotter. The need for a high productivity development environment for Linux is essential to move Linux into the mainstream and for its widespread acceptance in the business world supported by the IT community.

    While the argument that there are powerful, free tools for Linux holds. The generally accepted Open Source model for development tools simply will not cut it in a real IT shop. Tools used by IT shops need to be stable, robust, and supported. I like knowing that I can pick up the phone and get somebody when there is a problem that I don't have the immediate time or resources to solve. That's what I pay for.

    Users (business and home) want their favorite applications (or a strong competitor) available for an OS before they will accept it. These two areas are the niches where Delphi 6 and Kylix fill. D6 and Kylix do deliver what they promise. I can attest to that.

    Pascal as a language is generally dead. The modernized Object Pascal is an OOP language that meets many of the requirements of C++ programs. Object Pascal is far from dead. On the Windows platform, it is very viable. Because of the type safety inherent in the language, it's pretty hard to screw up development of simple apps. Yes, for pointers you need to do a few odd things. That's why we have class refernces. These are basically smart pointers. But, the object model is quite robust and capable.

    The underlying language is not dependent upon the visual elements you seem so quick to condemn. However, when a Delphi 6 or Kylix developer can sit down, write, test and deploy a SOAP service in under 10 minutes (yes..it was canned..but demonstrated at Borcon 2001)....well that's pretty amazing. Even more amazing is that with little effort, you have CGI, DSO, or ISAPI modules to fit almost any web server.

    These services have all the native support of Delphi's (and Kylix's) database and internet connectivity, a highly interactive development environment and a fully capable and visual debugger.

    Okay..I sound like a sales person. But, I'll tell you. After working with C, C++, VB, Powerbuilder and a slew of other languages, Delphi kicks butt on the Windows platform. The advent of Kylix and CLX on Linux will enable those same high powered productity and business apps developed using Delphi to be run on Linux. That's what it's all about...it's not a language war...it's about viability.