Borland Releases Kylix 3.0 for Delphi and C++

An anonymous reader writes "Looks like Borland is giving us Kylix for C++ after all. Kylix 3.0 is available in Open, Professional, and Enterprise versions. Time to start banging out those CLX apps! The Register also has a story about this."

Comments

Correction to the Register Story

[fm6]

The writer seems to think that Kylix 3 will be a C++ replacement for Kylix 2. Kylix 3 will support C++ in addition to the existing feature set.

How seemless will it be

[El_Muerte_TDS]

I wonder how seemless the Delphi and C++ will be. I also wonder if you can use the GNU C++ compiler for the C++ part, or only the Borland C++ compiler.

Re:How seemless will it be

[TulioSerpio]

Kylix 3 will be 2 IDEs, one for C++ and one for Delphi. But I think you can make components in one IDE/lenguage and use it in the other.
Of Course, the c++ code will compile in Kylix3/C++ and in CBuilder, and the OPascal code will compile in Kylix3/delphi and in Delphi

Re:How seemless will it be

[Blue 1ce]

From the Borland Kylix 3 FAQ

Q: What development languages does Kylix 3 support?

Once installed, Kylix 3 delivers two separate IDEs--one for use with the Delphi language and one that supports C/C++. This support enables Kylix developers to provide solutions in the language that suits them or the language that is appropriate for the given project. Both IDEs take advantage of the sophisticated CLX architecture and each has corresponding support for crossplatform development with a Borland product for the Windows platform: Delphi language with Delphi, and C/C++ with
C++Builder.

Q: Can I use standard Linux development tools along with Kylix 3?

Yes. For example, use build tools such as Make files or Ant, and editors such as vi or Emacs.

http://borland.com/kylix/pdf/kyl3_faq.pdf

So, looks like no GCC-support...

Re:How seemless will it be

[RiBread]

You can already find out how seemless the Object Pascal/C++ integration will be, Borland C++ Builder

I've used BCB, and it's a quality product. It's not as clean as Delphi, but some PHB's I've seen get scared when you tell them you're going to write software in *shock* something other than C/C++.

When it comes to working with databases it's just hard to beat the usefullness and quality of the Borland database components. You just have to do so much less work when you use them.

Re:How seemless will it be

[vrt3]

If the behavior on Windows is any indication, Delphi and C++ work very well together.

As for gcc/g++, I don't that will be possible. I don't know Kylix but I do know C++Builder (though only with VCL, not with CLX), and it uses a number of extensions to C++ such as properties.

Re:How seemless will it be

[CoolVibe]

Yeah that would be cool. Being able to compile your Kylix C++ projects with a makefile/autoconf system and assorted Kylix libraries/components/whatever without needing the complete IDE/RAD environment.

Although I wouldn't turn up my nose at the Borland compiler, it's a fast one, and it produces tight and good code.

Re:How seemless will it be

[dthable]

Although I wouldn't turn up my nose at the Borland compiler, it's a fast one, and it produces tight and good code.

Too bad it's not standard code. People grill Mircosoft for not making a standard C++ compiler, but then turn around and sing praise to Borland when they just forget to implement large parts of the template and RTTI sections in their compiler.

The real reason Borland can't make a standard compiler is that they would loose out on all that wonderful pascal code they bet the company on years ago. Delphi didn't make it against Visual Basic so why not repackage it for C++ developers. Frankly, they can keep the crap. If I'm looking to write messed up code, I might as well pick up Objective-C and learn Cocoa.

Re:How seemless will it be

[mark-t]

I had asked this question some time ago (a bit over a year ago) of a Borland developer in a forum where the subject of C++ Builder for Linux was a topic.

The long and the short of his answer was that we really can't expect a whole heckuva lot. The developer stated that it was not likely to be highly interoperable with conventional Linux development languages and tools. Certainly importing will be possible, but you couldn't expect, for example, gdb to be very successful with it, nor would it be likely that gcc or g++ be able to link with libraries or object files that were created with C++ Builder for Linux. Further, because C++ Builder extends the C++ language to accomodate certain features, it will not be possible to compile C++ Builder source code with g++.

I hate being the bearer of bad news (I found it discouraging, at any rate), but I'm just repeating what I was told by a Borland developer. As I said, this was about a year ago, so if there is more up-to-date info on this topic from an authorized source, I am sure I'm not the only one here who would be interested in hearing it.

Delphi?

[AccUser]

I don't know about Delphi, but most of our code is developed in Delhi.

Re:Delphi?

[TulioSerpio]

How do you talk to an oracle? "The Oracle at Delphi" was the word association that popped into my head. So I offered up "Delphi": If you want to talk to [the] Oracle, go to Delphi.

Not such a big deal

[RussHart]

Personally I don't see why this item is such news. IIRC Borland always said they would support C++ at some later date, and now they are.

Now we just have to wait for really poor UI#s like all of the early Deplhi ones...

amusing quote

[Peter La Casse]

From the Register article: "Command-line tools get the job done at a low-level, but these tools have not been easy to use. You have several console windows open to build and debug [an application]," said product manager for RAD solutions John Ray Thomas.

Since when is having multiple xterms "not easy to use"?

Re:amusing quote

[jpvlsmv]

This guy is obviously not an emacs user.

Re:amusing quote

[feldkamp]

Yes, I believe it does have intellisense.

Actually, until VS.NET came out, I would have said that Delphi/Kylix's intellisense was far superior to VC6 and everything else on the market. As of Visual Studio.NET, however, MS has made a comeback in the Easy-To-Use IDE race, and is on par w/ delphi.

Re:amusing quote

[DearSlashdot]

Since when is having multiple xterms "not easy to use"?

How about for people who are still learning how to code? Oh, I forgot, real 1337 linux hackers never went through that phase, they came out of the womb with their knowledge.

All other things being equal, an integrated RAD environment will very often shorten time to code and debug a project. It is definitely easier to use a RAD tool like Delphi than just a text editor and command-line tools. For some people, it may not be that much different. For others, that may be the difference between getting into programming and not.

Oh, I forgot again, you don't want those people in your precious Linux world.

Re:amusing quote

[Junta]

I can't stand VS .net, I started using it and then tired of the crap and found VS6 much more straightforward. In either case I'm glad I rarely need Visual Studio, as most of my development is either *nix or cross-platform.

Re:amusing quote

[Peter La Casse]

How about for people who are still learning how to code?

For them, nothing is easy to use, since coding is full of new concepts that they don't understand yet.

Using multiple xterms is not more difficult than using multiple windows within an IDE, and both require the multiple window concept in order to display different files simultaneously.

Now, coding in a single window, closing one file in order to view another - that's more difficult / less productive.

Re:amusing quote

[Maggot75]

Why is this moderated as a troll? It's on-topic, a reasonable discussion and not too harsh in stating a view?
I disagree with the point, though. Programming under a gui is actually very easy. Put a button on a form in a form designer, and double click it to edit the button's OnClick event handling code (like in Delphi)? It's easy as pie, and is very intuitive (at least for a beginner, but advanced features are a bugger to reach).
I have at least found Delphi, etc., the easiest to use when writing a gui application.

Re:amusing quote

[DearSlashdot]

For them, nothing is easy to use, since coding is full of new concepts that they don't understand yet.

I think you are drawing a too black-and-white distinction here. The fact is, someone learning understands things to varying degrees. Using a tool like delphi that 1) has excellent integrated debugging, 2) has excellent integrated, context-sensitive documentation, and 3) has excellent intellisense shortens that learning curve by taking what they know and making it easy for them to access the documentation and declarations, and extend their current knowledge. If they were completely in the dark, neither command-line nor RAD would be much of a help. But that's not the reality for most people (at least not for very long).

Take Delphi. I want to use an object. I type the object's name, dot. Up pops a box with all of the properties and methods, in order of inheritance, with their parameter declarations. I can instantly see what options I have, which give me a great deal of insight into what this object does. If I need more, I press F1, and the help takes me to the object or property that I am on. Functions work the same. Type [function]( and up pops the declaration, so you can see exactly what you need to send this. Hit F1, and...you get the point.

I find myself relying on Delphi's intellisense features to help me code because it reduces typos and is a lot faster. And that's just one feature. A good RAD environment is extremely useful for both newbies and veterans.

This is less about difficulty than it is a matter of efficiency and expense. It costs more time, effort, and mental overhead (for most people, there are always exceptions) to work with multiple windows and command-line tools than with an integrated environment. I would argue that a great many, if not most, people would find that the benefits of a well-designed RAD tool are worth the costs ($ and time to learn how to use it properly).

Re:amusing quote

[rburt3]

Oh, I forgot again, you don't want those people in your precious Linux world.

No, its mostly just you we don't want.

Re:amusing quote

[Torp]

The most useful feature of Delphi/C++ Builder/Kylix is *not* the code completion, but the GUI builder. Why bother positioning all those buttons and grids and whatever in *code* when Delphi has a GUI for that?

As opposed to VB, Delphi doesn't get in the way of the actual programming. You want a graphical GUI builder, you've got one. You want to write low level stuff, you switch to the code window. You can't appreciate that if you haven't used a Delphi derivative. It removes most of the tedium and boredom in writing UIs while letting you use *any* low level feature available in the current platform. It simply saves time.

Disclaimer: i don't work for Borland, but I work *with* Borland products :)

Re:amusing quote

[rburt3]

Seriously, though, you've got to learn the hard way before you can really appreciate the nice things. Besides, would you want to face VS.Net on day one of Programming 101 at your local Jr. College? C'mon, it would take a newb a whole semester just to learn what all of those tools were trying to tell it in the first place.

Hey, lets give first graders calculators too. Who wants to face learning all of that math using only pencil and paper!? You'd have to remember what those number looked like and which operator thingy did what...

IMHO its starting out using these IDE's that are lowering the overall quality of programmers these days. The universities are turning out folks who know how to use an environment, not how to write code.

Re:amusing quote

[Pfhreakaz0id]

I've worked in both, and didn't really find Delphi all that different from VB. I could get to the code just as easy in VB6. Delphi was different syntax, and a little more OO. Disclaimer: I didn't do a great deal of Delphi programming and I never used VB before 5.0 ..

Re:amusing quote

[Torp]

Hmm, I've never used VB after 3.0 :)
They must have copied Delphi - i've been using that one since the 1.0 days.

Re:amusing quote

[Pfhreakaz0id]

ah, well that would expain it. I've heard from folks I consider knowledgable that VB before 4.0 was a steaming pile of shit :)

IDE wise, Delphi 4/5 and VB 6 were pretty similar, as I recall (I don't do VB much these days).

Re:amusing quote

[informer]

I love VS .net, i started using it immediately when it came out since I was tired of all the other crap out there like VS6 which just wasn't straightforward. In either case I'm glad I rarely need to use Emacs or VI, as most of my development is only for windows-based clients.

Re:amusing quote

[RogerWilco]

I disagree with you here.
When learning to code it can be an advantage to only have a text editor (Emacs, Joe, notpad) and
a commandline compiler.

Only when you start on complex projects, GUI design, and the use of a lot of different libs packages/etc is when the Borland IDE really shines.
I wrote a complete e-mail client in C++ Builder like this:

void __fastcall TMainForm::SendButtonClick(TObject *Sender)
{
SMTP->PostMessageA->FromAddress = FromEdit->Text;
SMTP->PostMessageA->ToAddress->Add(ToEdit->Text );
SMTP->PostMessageA->Body->Clear();
SMTP->PostMessageA->Body->AddStrings(Memo->Lines);
SMTP->PostMessageA->Subject = SubjectEdit->Text;
SMTP->Host = HostEdit->Text;
SMTP->Connect();
SMTP->SendMail();
SMTP->Disconnect();
}

The rest including the documentation/etc. SMTP object was already there and I did this in about 20 min. including reading the help of the SMTP component on how to use it's methods/properties.

I think it was a real nice example of where the Borland procucts realy shine.

Adriaan Renting.

Free Download

[kh0ng]

heise [1] writes that there is a free version of Kylix [2] avaiable within the next few days. Its free and may only be used to develop Open Source applications.

[1] http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/hos-23.07.02-0 00/

[2] http://www.borland.com/kylix/open/index.html

Re:Free Download

[nvrrobx]

It's not really for only developing "Open Source" applications - it's restricted to GPL licensed apps. The BSD license is also an Open Source license, but apparently isn't allowed under the Free version of Kylix.

Re:Free Download

[mattdm]

Can they do that? I thought that a person could not place restrictions on the output of their program, unless it actually contained copyrighted parts of the generating program in the output.

I think it works by doing exactly that -- the required header files, etc. are distributed under the GPL. If you buy the commercial version, you get an alternate license.

Re:Free Download

[keesh]

Yes, they can. Basically, the compiler links your code to a GPLed library. Therefore, by the terms of the GPL, you are required to GPL your own app.

The 'commercial' versions don't do this, so you can license in any way you want.

For the curious, they link to the same library, but only with the commercial version do you get the dual license option (you can choose between GPL or a non-restricted license that way).

Re:Free Download

[spotter]

One could release their code under the GPL and BSD licenses. That would solve that problem. Under problem would be if you wanted to use an "Open Source" license that is more restrictive than the GPL.

Re:Free Download

[jamie]

"I was logged in that time, the preview even fucking showed me as logged in, then I go to submit and I become AC again"

Sounds like a bug. If you can file a bug report with info about what browser you're using, I'd appreciate it.

Best test: try posting one more time, making double-sure that "Post Anonymously" is not checked. If it still comes up anonymous, please log out of Slashdot, delete all slashdot.org cookies from your browser, quit browser, relaunch browser, and log back in -- then try posting again.

I haven't seen anyone else mention this as a problem, so my guess is something is screwy in your browser...

Re:Free Download

[sg_oneill]

Actually it's been available for some time....
I have the installer for it around somewhere, but I'm yet to fiddle with it yet for want of time. If it's anything like V1, it may have many of the wonderful library objects of the full version missing.... Sometimes I think that borland confuses free software for shareware.. *sigh* It's a shame though as Delphi/Kylix truely is a joyous language to program in.

Re:Free Download

[spotter]

reading above comment, it seems that perhaps I'm wrong, if they link to a gpl'd library, must be gpld, can't dual license it.

Re:Free Download

[gowen]

Basically, the compiler links your code to a GPLed library. Therefore, by the terms of the GPL, you are required to GPL your own app.

... except no one actually believes this to be enforceable, if I distribute my source code rather than binaries.

If I distribute code containing function calls that need to be resolved at link time, there is no way the license of my code can be governed by the license of libraries against which others may (or not) care to link it.

For example: Suppose code happens to work if you link it against the GPL'd "readline"; theres no way of knowing that I didn't intend it to be linked against, say a public domain replacement for readline, so the GPL cannot possibly govern my code. Theres no guarantee I've used readline, I may have never seen the code, or the license, let alone agreed to their conditions, so they can't possibly apply to me.

Re:Free Download

[bmetzler]

Sometimes I think that borland confuses free software for shareware..

Really? Shareware has nag screens. I haven't seen any nag screens in Kylix 2 yet. Care to elaborate? Kylix OE appears to be a free version of Kylix Pro to me.

-Brent

Re:Free Download

[GigsVT]

Well, I deleted all the cookies, lets see if it works now. I have a feeling it will this time.

Before, it was showing me as not-logged-in when I went to post the comment, and I tried entering the login info on the fly.

BTW- I could post logged in to stories that weren't in special sections, just the ones like science.slashdot.org wouldn't let me log in.

Re:Free Download

[dvdeug]

if they link to a gpl'd library, must be gpld, can't dual license it.

If you link to a GPL library, the combination of the program and the library as a whole must be distributed under the GPL. There's nothing wrong with offering the code under a BSD (no-ad) license; it would only have an effect if someone rewrote it to not use Kylix or if someone had the proprietary version.

Re:Free Download

[Natedog]

"If I distribute code containing function calls that need to be resolved at link time, there is no way the license of my code can be governed by the license of libraries against which others may (or not) care to link it."

Not true. Say, for example, that Borland releases a GPL'd version (not LGPL'd) of a library, and you build an application with this GPL'd library. Besides the fact that your exe contains GPL'd headers, your program is still a derivative of this library (the LGPL gets around both of these). Even if did a clean-room reverse engineer the library (not even c libraries are binary compatible, for example, readline my actually be defined as _borland_readline, and there is also the problem of startup/init code), you still have the header problem. If you rewrite the headers too, you just rewrote the entire library, so what was the point!

Re:Free Download

[sg_oneill]

nononono. I ofcourse presume that they removed the nag-like GPL screens of compiled apps generated from Kylix 1 in ver2? Did they? Borland *treats* the GPL as if its a second class of software. Principally the free-clx libraries are highly crippled compared to the non-free library... Implication.. Shareware.

Re:Free Download

[Joe Tie.]

I ofcourse presume that they removed the nag-like GPL screens of compiled apps generated from Kylix 1 in ver2?

Not in 2 at least. I had to make a program that some windows using friends could make use of as well, and thought the open kylix would be a great start. Knowing when a public release was made that the Linux version would look worse than the windows version, and have a nag screen was motivation enough to move what I had over to a nicely kde/gnome skinned java program instead. The last straw was when another friend came over and joked that my kylix aplication looked like a windows 3.1 shareware program.

Though I'm sure borland is crying over the loss of my $0.

Re:Free Download

[burnetd]

You missed this part of the quote...

"... except no one actually believes this to be enforceable, if I distribute my source code rather than binaries. "

There's no way you can enforce the GPL if you distribute source that says

#include "kernal.h"

because you can't prove the header is GPL'd source unless its included in the distribution.

Re:Free Download

[gowen]

Besides the fact that your exe contains GPL'd headers,

I'm not distributing the exe. I'm distributing code, which follows a published API (the interface to the readline library). Now, anyone who wants to use my code, and not the GPL'd readline, can go and do a cleanroom implementation of the API, download my source and do whatever she wants with it. No GPL'd components, no problem. And who is to say that someone, somewhere hasn't a proprietary API compatible non-GNU readline implementation?

your program is still a derivative of this library

By following the API, I can write a readline-compatible program, without ever touching readline sources, headers or binaries. I can't compile it, but I don't want to, I'm just going to distribute the source. I can't be infected by the GPL if I've had no contact with GPL'd materials.

(Don't get me wrong, I like the GPL, I just don't think they're legally very solid on this.)

Re:Free Download

[sg_oneill]

I imagine that given time the "3.1 shareware" look thing will be less and less of a problem. I discovered pretty early on theat Delphi had (A)Shite loads (@ the torry.net site) of pretty widgets and the like for fairly tightly themed apps, and that a bit of creativity goes a long way. Things like using 'clickable' images for buttons (like one does with a web page) and taking advantage of things like the 'speed' buttons and the like. The widget objects tend to expose a lot of tweakability. Give Kylix time.

Re:Borlnd should stick to Java

[N2UX]

I can think of several great products released by Borland over the years - Turbo Pascal, Turbo C, and Turbo Basic to name a few of them. There was a time when Borland's products were the "compiler of choice" for most developers, especially in the CP/M and early MS-Dos days. For the longest time, Borlands Debugger (TDebug) was shipped with Microsoft's C compilers.

Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[mojogojo]

I've actually used Kylix 2.0 Open Edition to cross-compile a shareware game I've been working on in Delphi 6. It's very convienent to have one set of source code, and simply re-compile with Kylix for Linux distribution! (Yes, avoiding Windows API calls and such helps... plus I'm using JEDI-SDL (Simple DirectMedia Layer) for graphic/sound cross-platform stuff). Perhaps now instead of people saying, you can't develop cross-platform games with Delphi you should use C++... I can simple agree (instead of arguing and pointing out that Kylix is cross-platform) and say, sure, I could do that and use the same compiler I've been using all along... leaving certain code in Delphi, but re-writting parts in C++ (just for fun) but no, I don't have to use C++ it's just a language - I prefer Kylix 3.0 for my development environment!

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[mojogojo]

I apologize for your headache, but I wanted to post at least SOMETHING that was relevant to the topic! More than half of the replies to the news of Kylix 3.0 release is a bunch of garbage.

In the future, I'll try to spend an additional minute to edit my message to make myself more clear. how about:

Kylix 3.0 integrates two great object-oriented languages into one very powerful IDE. Check it out!

Would that have been better? Go drink some coffee you bastard.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[mojogojo]

I compiled with Kylix 2 Open Edition, but I haven't released. You'll have to take my word that it actually runs fine (on development box running Red Hat 7.1). ;)

Seriously though, you make a good point. Since I am releasing both the Windows and Linux version of the game as shareware, I have to purchase the Kylix 2.0 Professional license in order to do so. Fair is fair. I wouldn't expect to be able to use their tool for free to create something I can turn around and sell.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[Graspee_Leemoor]

"Kylix 3.0 integrates two great object-oriented languages into one very powerful IDE. Check it out!"

What did they replace object pascal and c++ with ?

graspee

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[dthable]

Kylix 3.0 integrates two great object-oriented languages into one very powerful IDE.

Only through a load of C++ compiler options. I used C++ Builder (the foundation for Kylix on Windows) and it's just full of special compiler constructs like __fastcall and other BS that just detracts from C++. Plus, the STL support just wasn't included. Nothing like needing to convert strings a million times just to interface with a standard C++ library. I'll be impressed when I can write applications using standard C++ language features and library APIs without learning about the pascal workings of this product.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[woolite]

C-Builder has STL support and is fully compliant otherwise. Your comment suggests that you touched C-Builder extremely briefly.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[mbklein]

I've actually used Kylix 2.0 Open Edition to cross-compile a shareware game I've been working on in Delphi 6.

You realize, of course, that by using the Kylix Open Edition, you're under obligation to GPL your "shareware" game, right? If you want to keep your code to yourself, without violating the Open Edition license, you have to purchase the Kylix Standard Edition.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[mbklein]

Replying to myself -- I didn't notice that this issue was already addressed 'cause I was cruising at +2. Sorry for the redundancy.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[RogerWilco]

C++ Builder 6 ships with STLPort
A complete and up-to-date STL implementation.
http://www.stlport.org/

Before that (C++ Builder 3&4 1996/98) they used RogueWeave STL implementation. Maybe C++Builder 1 didn't have the support. Are you sure you are not confused with Borland C++ for Windows?
(this is the succesor of TurboC, the predecessor
of the C++ Builder)

I work in a company that has been using this since C++ Builder 3. We have been waiting for any easy way to port our codebase (in C++ Builder 3/4/5) to Linux. This is now here!

C++ Builder 6 is fully ANSI/ISO C and C++ compliant. The do have compiler extentions like
__fastcall and __property to allow interoperatibility with Object Pascal. This is an advantage. because it allows you to inherit from objects made in Object Pascal, even if you do not have the source.

Adriaan Renting.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[RogerWilco]

I completely agree with you, in the company we have a Turbo C -> Borland C++ -> C++ Builder
legacy of millions of code.
We have been waiting for this. This allows us to port our software to Linux. As we supply software that should run without a hitch for months/years this is really an option for us.

We use a lot of 3rd party objects, most of which have been ported to Kylix/CLX, but a lot of our own code is using STL, and other C++ specific tools, so we were realy waiting for the Object Pascal/ C++ solution.

Adriaan Renting.

Re:Kylix is good. Kylix is great.

[dthable]

C++Builder 1.0 for Windows didn't support a number of STL classes (like string) per the specifications. I thought that version 3.0 would work better, but I still was missing some of the algorithms and such defined in the standad.

I haven't worked with any additional version of C++ Builder since then. If they have changed the support for STL, then I wouldn't know. I'm sure they still require things like AnsiString when passing information to controls. When I can pass my STL string into their controls, then I'll take another look.

If they could get this used in schools...

[FyRE666]

This would be a major reason for schools on tight budgets to turn to Linux for computer programming classes! Why pay for the Microsoft tools (and tax) when this is available? Seems the LTSP folks should look into this...

Re:If they could get this used in schools...

[capt.Hij]

First, MS is giving away the c++ stuff so it would be hard to turn away from that. (They do this for us anyways...) Second, from reading the article I was surprised to learn that it is "difficult" to program without a GUI.

<BITCH>
Damn, I must be a bigger freak than I thought. I find it much easier to use emacs and a makefile. dbx is a bit clunky but come on, is this stuff really that difficult? How come students freak out if they have to actually type something rather than click on it.
</BITCH>

More importantly, how come this makes it to slashdot, but this other article at The Register does not? Life isn't fair....

Re:If they could get this used in schools...

[zakharin]

Funny how none of my computer classes (at Penn)ever use any MS product whatsoever. All the work is done on Solaris X-Terminals using Java, C, ML, SPARC assembly. Sure they have MS tools freely available in the labs, but they specifically state that all programs must compile on the Solaris tools in the end.

Re:If they could get this used in schools...

[MyAss]

Rutgers University is the same way. Your programs must compile on Solaris. They even teach you basic emacs in one of the beginning classes. (or at least they did a couple years ago)

Re:If they could get this used in schools...

[MrCawfee]

Acually microsoft gives a site license for ALL of it's development software for $799, which includes giving FREE copies away to students.. Although i still would rather goto the student store and buy Kylix Professional for the nice student price of 99 =)

Re:If they could get this used in schools...

[bastard01]

I would be up for having this at my university, but.. we mainly work on java, so I don't think that a C++/delphi ide will really help the costs of dev tools for the department or the school. This is still interesting, and if they can create a windows version of at least the open edition, you can actually use this product on both platforms for those schools who are afraid to completely redo their network in order to use a programming environment. Although I have been waiting for this program to come out personally for a very long time. This is because although I do like what kdevelop and anjuta offer, they aren't very friendly with my gentoo 1.3b install that I am currently running. I would say that this would also be a good thing for professional developers to look at when upgrading their own development environments, because with the uptime that linux has, and the completely developer friendly design, with a multi-platform tool with the most widely used programming language, this could be a very positive thing for them as well.

Re:If they could get this used in schools...

[SpaceJunkie]

As far as I am aware the MS compiler and libs are free once you click here to sell your soul to Bill Gates. It is the IDE, MSDN and supporting systems which are costly. However - If anyone knows how to get such things -compiler, libs and includes without stealing them from a visual studio(visual c++) disk please post how.

When I am doing hard core processing, and when teaching students to do the basics- it is better to steer clear of a gui at all and start them on console programming - for which Linux and Gcc alone are perfectly suited - methinks better so than windows. Partly because more interesting things can be acheived with the DevFS and by messing with shell script addons from within the program. Also the Man pages are a good start for documentation, but a good lecturer will have some good library reference docs and have taught the techniques well enough.

When learning gui programming - its a sad fact that althogh the design principles of making a usable GUI are the same, the programmin methods behind them are not. Java has at least three methods, visual studio around the same, delphi the same, and linux has many more. It is better to find a relatively simple one that is *freely available* to deonstrate the principles and hooking code to buttons etc(depending on which task system the app is based upon).

Good point made there- this article is not only funny as hell and interesting, but it is also informative. But lets be honest - it will only spawn the usual pro and anti MS wars.. I would just say if you are reading this thread - go have a look at it...

Re:If they could get this used in schools...

[RogerWilco]

If you use Java, I think the way to go is Borland J Builder, that was at least what was used at my unversity CS classes, on Linux of course, but that was more a security issue with all those CS students around. When I started everying was Emacs, HP-UX and HP pascal, they migrated later.
The Object Pascal/Delphi/C++ line of their products is more geared towards industrial/commercial applications where java is often considered
1) new (as in not around when much of the existing code was written)
2) Easy to crack/ get around features to prevent you from using it without buying it.
(obfuscation in the code is harder)
3) slow.
4) Less easy to distribute, as it needs (the right version of) a VM.

some of these disadvantages might not be real, but it's what at least makes my boss stay in a C/C++ environment.

Adriaan Renting.

prepositions of doom...

[bsDaemon]

two powerful object-oriented languages in on development solution

Neverwinter editor?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know they haven't even released a client yet, but Bioware told us that they couldn't port the NWN toolset because there is no borland c++ builder for Linux.

Now there is. Anyone think they'll port it after the client?

Where are the screenshots?

[Sleepy]

I looked all over the Kylix website, and failed to locate any screenshots for their product. What gives?

Yes, I know I can download a Trial, if I go through the registration process... but I just wanted to look at it.

I've never heard of a product page without product images. Wierd. :-/

Anyone have a link?

Re:Where are the screenshots?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's an IDE. There's some buttons across the top and a text editor in the middle.

Re:Where are the screenshots?

[red_gnom]

It is all CmdrTaco's fault. If not the smart filters he develops, I would be able to draw you some. Instead I get those "to many garbage characters" messages.

Re:Where are the screenshots?

[mojogojo]

Screenshots of Kylix IDE...(an alpha version)
http://www.drbob42.com/kylix/hotshot.htm

I tend to agree with the Anonymous poster.. it's an IDE.. the power of CodeInsight, code templates, etc can't easily be demonstrated through a screenshot. Read through the Features to get an idea of what the environment supports.

Re:Where are the screenshots?

[MagPulse]

I've seen some IDEs so ugly I wouldn't touch them. Notably those that make you work with multiple windows that take up five positions on the task bar instead of having a workspace that you dock windows in. Also, especially with Linux, having usable widgets is not a given.. I cringe when I see buttons that total maybe 30 pixels or less.

Re:Where are the screenshots?

[Joe Tie.]

it's an IDE.. the power of CodeInsight, code templates, etc can't easily be demonstrated through a screenshot.

What's odd is the one feature I loved most about kylix, the familier gui building tools isn't shown.

Re:Here how it works

[feldkamp]

They're *selling* it. They're only giving away an "Open" version. The open version can't be used to create commercial apps, and doesn't contain all of the components that make delphi development so easy and efficient. I use delphi at work (I've got it open now, actually), and I've tried the Open version of Kylix before at home... it's way watered down compared to the pro/enterprise versions of delphi/kylix. Still a really useful tool for simple, quick, and fast apps.

It's not a bad business model, considering most people doing non-comercial development won't pay a hefty price for a professional development environment anyways.

Re:Has Borland dropped their dependency on Qt yet?

[junk95]

Kylix is a commercial app and must use Qt
under the terms of the commercial license.
But the apps created with Kylix (Open) are not commercial so they can/must use Qt under the terms of the GPL. Probably :-)

Linux kernel compilation?

[Jacek Poplawski]

Is there standard command line compiler in Kylix? Is it possible to compile existing programs - for example Linux kernel - with it?
It will be nice if gcc wouldn't be only choice.

Re:Linux kernel compilation?

[CoolVibe]

I believe there is a cmdline compiler supplied, but if you can compile kernels with it, that's anyone's guess.

That leaves you with only one option: just try it :)

Re:Linux kernel compilation?

[Mr. Shiny And New]

You won't likely be able to compile the linux kernel because it uses GCC specific extensions. Also, the kernel does many tricks to increase performance, and some of these tricks depend on particular compilers. Also, only a few versions of the compilers are supported by each given kernel. Even new GCC compilers often break the kernel.

Re:Linux kernel compilation?

[FooBarWidget]

That's because everybody bitches about standards being useless. It's people like you that made them do non-standard things in the first place! So don't blame them, blame you and your friends for pushing them that far.

Re:Linux kernel compilation?

[drewness]

No clue about Kylix, but I'm pretty sure the most recent icc complier from Intel can compile the Linux kernel. Like a couple others have mentioned, the kernel uses some gcc extensions, but I think Intel supports them for whatever good it may do. Plus, if Kylix is a C++ compiler only, then it has no chance of comiling the kernel. I was just reading on the lkml faq today that because of some C++ keywords that are used in the kernel as variables, and because the kernel headers aren't C++ safe that the kernel compile just barfs with a C++ compiler.

Re:Has Borland dropped their dependency on Qt yet?

[ultima]

So you'd use a proprietary product, just not if it uses another proprietary product? (that is distributed under a very similar, and even less restrictive, license!)

How is Borland any less evil than Troll Tech?

tricked

[aXi]

I feel tricked I went to the Borland site to try to download, foudn out I had to register. Only to find out after registering that only version two is downloadable..

GCC and borland

[johnjones]

ok borland have been shipping their CPP compiler for a while on linux (nothing new)

what this release does I would think is link aganst the CLX to do the GUI stuff

and add their CPP IDE (which is actually visual and drag and drop unlike microsofts which is just a text editor but they call it visual...)

now if they where useing STANDARD CPP why should using GCC be impossible (I suspect they have a few broken things in terms of standard support just like gcc has a few broken things) and the fact that CPP changes every meeting does not help but it would be nice if they said what gcc would require to do this
(I am not talking about opening up CLX just linking your code with it useing gnu tools)

borland selling in effect libs and a IDE would be a good thing IMHO

regards

john jones

Re:GCC and borland

[NDSalerno]

"now if they where useing STANDARD CPP why should using GCC be impossible (I suspect they have a few broken things in terms of standard support just like gcc has a few broken things)"

There is a reason why Borland doesn't use standard C++ with C++ Builder (both Win32 and Linux). Take a look at the fundamental design philosophies of the VCL/CLX. It is very component oriented. You cannot do that with standard C++ (or you can but in a really ugly non-elegant way). This is because of how Delphi worked. Two important things:

• Properties. A much simpler form of accessors and mutators (via GetX/SetX).
• Published section. You know private, protected, and public? Well here is published. Anything under published is public with RTTI information automatically generated. A property under a published section will be visible to the Object Inspector (or any piece of code that queries the object's RTTI).

Under Delphi these two things made for very powerful and easy programming. How do you do that in standard C++ in a simliar and easy way? I think Qt tackled that problem the best. However, Microsoft (via MFC) did the worst job. MFC is proof that C++ needs better, or updated, language facilities. Qt is also proof in a way. I like the signal/slot mechanism, but when you have to have a seperate meta-object compilation phase then that raises some kind of warning flag. I don't blame Borland for just adding their own extensions to their version of C++. IMHO they have made C++ a much better language.

On a side note, in terms of pure C++, I like Qt. It is better than most other libraries I have used. However, I prefer Borland C++ Builder over Qt.

Re:GCC and borland

[corey_lawson]

...because they use the same basic compiler for Object Pascal and C++. If they added Object Pascal support for GCC, they'd have to redistribute that openly, no?

Re:GCC and borland

[J. Random Software]

How can you possibly get "much simpler" than this?

#define property(name, type) \
type name##_; \
type name() const { return name##_; } \
type name(type new_value) { \
type old_value(name##_); \
name##_ = new_value; \
return old_value; \
}

RTTI for members is a good idea, but altering the language to enable a feature that doesn't even change the meaning of the code is ridiculous. Why not just provide it for all members with a switch or #pragma for the rare cases when you really can't afford it?

Re:GCC and borland

[Torp]

The original poster forgot that you get automatic persistence for published properties (simple types, at least). Does wonders for component writers; i.e. it forces you to think carefully what part of the object state you want saved and what you don't - and what you want available to the user.

While the persistence part may seem like overkill, the actual properties idea *does* belong into the C++ standard. Hopefully Borland don't have a patent for it.

From my windows programming days i remember you could link mostly any dynamic or static library to Delphi/C++ Builder, as long as you didn't want to use classes defined in the dll/lib. This means you can probably link anything written with gcc to a Delphi application, as long as you don't want to use external classes; for that you will need to write some kind of C-level wrapper. Understandable, since not even ANSI dares to define a binary interface for classes.

Re:GCC and borland

[KenSeymour]

Two points.

1) Qt redefines C++ to avoid forcing users to have to define lots of event adaptor classes. Are they being rediculous?

2) Using a #define is frowned upon by C++ folks generally. Lets say you publish a library version 1.0. Your users implement a lot of code you can't see.
Then version 1.1 of your library adds a #define for property.
Unfortunately, one of your users had defined a method property as part of their published interface.
Then they shipped their product to a third group.
Now your #define breaks their code and their customer's code.

Re:GCC and borland

[joib]

1) No, I don't think so.

2) There's always the risk of name conflicts when linking another combination of software than the original. Of course your point is valid in the sense that "normal" identifiers can be put into namespaces, while IIRC #define:s can't. There are very good reasons for avoiding use of #define, see the post by NDsalermo below your post for the real reasons. In C++ one generally uses const variables and inline functions instead of #define.

As I look at my calendar...

[qurob]

Borland's only a couple years late.

Good try, anyway.

RHIDE had me pretending to be using Turbo C++ for the longest time.

DataCAD

[EvilBudMan]

DataCAD is written in Delphi. I wonder how hard a port would be?

Re:Too bad the BDE is dead

[cheezedawg]

You are kidding, right? When I was developing applications in Delphi, we were going out of our way to avoid the BDE. It was a pain to make sure that the users had the proper BDE configuration (some wierd BDE setting getting changed was the cause of 75% of our database problems). Plus the BDE initialization added at least 10 seconds to the program startup time. We were MUCH happier when we went with the native drivers and some direct access components.

This also affects NWN.

[rasjani]

Never Winter Nights gameeditor for linux hasnt been released because of this. It was build with c++ builder but they couldnt release it for linux because they didnt have Kylix yet to allow. Yew! Wonder who fast isle can provide the editor ;))

Re:This also affects NWN.

[LMCBoy]

Wonder who fast isle can provide the editor ;))

isle? You mean Black Isle? They have nothing whatever to do with NWN...it was produced by Bioware, and published by Infogrames.

It would be cool indeed if they port the NWToolset. My fingers are crossed, but I don't expect it anytime soon; the Live Team is pretty busy squashing bugs at the moment...

Re:This also affects NWN.

[rasjani]

My fault, true, i meant Bioware. Somehow i allways thougt that they are same company, where Black Isle is the coding team and Bioware the marketing one..

Re:This also affects NWN.

[LMCBoy]

hehe, nope you've got it backwards. For the BG series, Bioware developed, and Black Isle (a division of Interplay) published/marketed. However, for NWN Bioware dumped Interplay, so now Black Isle and Bioware are completely separate now (although Black Isle is using Bioware's old Infinity engine to create Icewind Dale 2).

Re:This also affects NWN.

[eddy]

Actually, Kylix use a new component library (CLX), so they can't actually 'port' the toolset, which was written using VCL or whatever the old libs was called. Well, not easily.

Re:This also affects NWN.

[Joe Tie.]

I've never used C++ builder 6, but borland's C++ builder page says it uses CLX.

Re:This also affects NWN.

[eddy]

I think the toolset was built using v5. The executable contains references like 'vcltest3.dll' and a lot of 'D:\COMP\BORLAND\CBUILDER5\INCLUDE\VCL'-stuff (assertions I think).

Re:This also affects NWN.

[alecthomas]

If the rate at which they're fixing the bugs in the game are any indication, the Linux version of the world builder (let alone the client) will be released sometime in, oh, 2010?

Re:This also affects NWN.

[chefren]

isle? You mean Black Isle?

From Arcanum: The Isle of Despair? Do you mean Black Isle?

duhhh CLX is GPL - http://freeclx.sourceforge.net/

[Anonymous Coward]

They dual license the libraries so they can be used either GPL or proprietary... you really should know what you're talking about before you flame...

Re:Has Borland dropped their dependency on Qt yet?

[SwellJoe]

So you'd use a proprietary product, just not if it uses another proprietary product? (that is distributed under a very similar, and even less restrictive, license!)

How is Borland any less evil than Troll Tech?

Huh? How is Troll Tech evil? People wanted QT under the GPL, and lo and behold, they released it under the GPL. Seems like a nice bunch of folks to me.

Re:Do you realize that you are trolling?

[red_gnom]

And now they do. That's why it is the news. They produce very robust, slick, and professional compilers, and IDEs. Personally I love them.

Please stop trolling.

Kylix CLX Library is GPL

[Anonymous Coward]

hosted on Sourceforge http://freeclx.sourceforge.net/

Re:Kylix CLX Library is GPL

[bro1]

This GPLed CLX source is for Kylix 1

2002-07-23 13:28:19 Kylix 3 out soon (rejected)

[oliverthered]

Grrrrrr.....
anyhows

C++ looks good, C Builder has always had far better debuging tools than Delphi, I hope Kylix C++ has decient debugging.

The professional version now has a postgres driver, there was a serious lack of DB drivers in Kylix 1 professional.

Kylix 2 had an odd dependency on Wine I hope thats fixed now.

Looks like it's time to upgrade that Kylix 1 Pro box set I've got sat on the shelf...

C++ interoperablility (or lack thereof)

[Principal Skinner]

Perhaps more important, on the C++ side, is the general fact that code compiled with one C++ compiler is not likely to work with code generated by a different compiler. C++ specifies the use of name mangling, but doesn't specify how that is to be implemented. So all your class names and so on are represented in some compiler-specific way in the shared libraries, making them inaccessible to programs compiled with a different C++ compiler, unless the makers of the two compilers have gotten together and somehow agreed on exactly how to do the name mangling (which has not happened to date, that I've heard of).

I can't speak for C support, but the failure of Borland C++ to support the GNU compiler is inevitable, and not anyone's fault, except maybe Bjarne Stroustrup's.

Re:C++ interoperablility (or lack thereof)

[Xeriar]

There are always difficulties, but if I can say anything about Borland, it is that they have never failed to impress me with their language tools.

I would hardly go so far as to say Borland is going to fail at it. They survive in the shadow of Microsoft, they have to have -something- going for them.

Re:C++ interoperablility (or lack thereof)

[Natedog]

What you say is true: the Kylix 3 compiler produces c++ object code that is incompatible with other c++ compilers (including gnu). Besides the name mangling problem, there is the problem with memory layout and calling conventions -- what is really needed is a standard c++ abi.

To answer you question about C support -- it is fully supported, including structured data layout and c calling conventions. In fact, much of the c library is glibc.

Re:C++ interoperablility (or lack thereof)

[ianezz]

...have gotten together and somehow agreed on exactly how to do the name mangling

Well, it's not only name mangling, but also how exceptions are handled, how memory is (de)allocated, etc. A C++ ABI is more than just name (de)mangling.

OTOH, there is an ongoing effort to define a common ABI for C++, and GCC 3.x uses that: see here for more info.

Re:C++ interoperablility (or lack thereof)

[randombit]

Natedog sayz: what is really needed is a standard c++ abi

There is one for x86 and IA-64. And since most of the low-level stuff (which registers are caller-saved, etc) is handled by the C ABI, it probably wouldn't be too hard to 'port' the ABI definition to other machines.

The C++ ABI was originally only for IA-64, but I guess Intel realized that this was a good idea on other systems. I'm not sure if x86-64 has one. I know that the Linux/*BSD/GCC people are basically defining the ABI themselves, but I'm not sure if they're doing C++ or only C.

Re:From C++ to Pascan and back?

[Betcour]

You are confused. Delphi/Kylix used Object Pascal and is fully object. There's no problem mapping it to C++ or the other way around.

things the open version does not include

[Raleel]

exporting the project to GNU makefile....

several shortcuts and completion style things

debugging spawn processes, connecting to running processes. Almost anything debugging related it appears

dataaware compents such as labels (!), edit boxes, listboxes...

and a lot of other nice features.

No complaints, they are trying to sell it :)

Re:Has Borland dropped their dependency on Qt yet?

[Sloppy]

This is utterly ludicrous logic.

It wouldn't be so bad, if you were complaining that you refused to use a Free product due to its reliance on proprietary libraries. But you're complaining that you refuse to use a proprietary product, due to its reliance on proprietary libraries. (Why was this modded up?!? Hey.. have I just been trolled?)

It reminds me of a joke (by W.C. Fields, I think?):

A guy asks a lady, "Madam, would you sleep with me for a million dollars?" She thinks about it, and answers that she would. Then the guy asks, "Would you sleep with me for ten dollars?" Insulted and indignant, she asks, "What sort of woman do you think I am?!" His reply: "We've already established that. We're merely haggling over the price."

standard CPP

[oliverthered]

Borland doesn't use standard C++, well that's not quite true, there C++ compiler used to be and probably still is the most ANSI compliant but Borland have there own C++ extensions.

Closures
and
Properties.

a closure works like this
struct closure{
* thispointer;
* functionpointer
}

calling closure(1,2,3) effectivly does thispointer->function(1,2,3) or
functionpointer(thispointer,1,2,3);

Properties are user friendly, natural getters and setters.

I don't think that GCC will works with them...

Re:standard CPP

[Zordak]

I personally believe that the __property keyword should be adopted by the ANSI C++ standard. There were so many times before I discovered Borland that I thought, for example, "I wish C++ had something like read-only members." Suddenly, I discover this nifty __property keyword that lets me do exactly that, or even better, to cause a read or assignment to execute code. It may not be ideologically pure (a purist will say an assignment will assign and do nothing more), but it is so useful and so in line with the C++ philosophy of hiding complexity, I just think it belongs. AnsiString would be a nice addition to ANSI C++ too.

Re:standard CPP

[oliverthered]

I aggree...

C++ is a very natural language with opperator overloading etc... but they never sorted out properties and closures.

You have to use getters/setters or nasty signal slot hackarrounds.

Re:screenshots?

[mojogojo]

yeah, it is strange they don't have a better tour of the IDE. Perhaps they do want people to download the trail version (and therefore require registration with them so they can sick their sales team on you...)

The best alternative (instead of registering and downloading Kylix 3.0 trial or Open Edition) I found on Borland's site is to take the Product Tour of Kylix. It's a Flash 5 presentation and provides quick glimpses of the IDE, and goes into much detail why Kylix should be considered as development package. Although it's geared more for the Enterprise-level manager than for the greater audience which would be us, the typical software developer.

Please post if you find screenshots!

Re:Here how it works

[Pig Hogger]

They're *selling* it. They're only giving away an "Open" version. The open version can't be used to create commercial apps, and doesn't contain all of the components that make delphi development so easy and efficient. I use delphi at work (I've got it open now, actually), and I've tried the Open version of Kylix before at home... it's way watered down compared to the pro/enterprise versions of delphi/kylix. Still a really useful tool for simple, quick, and fast apps.

Obviously, they did that thinking of the children... Geek kids can download Delphi and learn to program for free; what else would be better to insure a steady flow of able programmers for the future???

Re:Too bad the BDE is dead

[earache]

They've been trying to dump the BDE for ages. Nobody wants to use it, it's bloated and slow and requires the end user to install additional software.

Use dataexpress, does the exact same thing in a much smaller footprint.

What is the "GNU Perl toolkit"?!

[joneshenry]

Reading the Register's article I came across the bizarre phrase "GNU Perl toolkit". I have never heard of this toolkit. A google search of the exact phrase "GNU Perl toolkit" returns nothing. The FSF's page on Perl has nothing mentioning any sort of toolkit, whereas their page on Java has many projects listed.

A search of google did reveal however that there is a shocking number of companies who seem to believe that there is something called "GNU Perl" including apparently IBM. I'm not holding my breath for RMS to spend any of his time correcting this widespread inaccurate credit of Perl to the GNU project.

Re:Too bad the BDE is dead

[Drunken_Jackass]

No i'm totally not kidding, and i find it offensive that my post was modded down as a troll. I'm being completely honest here.

Perhaps i should have said that the BDE was the bane of my existence, but that my hands are tied becuause the software that i use is intimately tied to it.

While i agree that the BDE is slow to start, and a management nightmare, it doesn't change the fact that a whole horde of applications were developed to use it. Now that Borland has all but forgotten about it, us BDE users are screwed!

I mean, seriously, a 48K limit on the config file?! are you f*cking kidding me?!

Re:screenshots?

[mojogojo]

Screenshots of Kylix IDE...(an alpha version)
http://www.drbob42.com/kylix/hotshot.htm

Features of Kylix 3.0...
http://borland.com/kylix/pdf/kyl3_feamatrix.pdf

Re:Too bad the BDE is dead

[doconnor]

Assuming you where using the TDataSet descendents rather then the BDE API it should be pretty easy switch the app to using one of the many alternative database engines available.

As for the BDE, the only good thing about it is that encouraged so many 3rd party developers to create replacements for it.

Re:Too bad the BDE is dead

[ArcadeNut]

I agree 100%. I have been using Delphi since the day it came out (Feb '95) and the BDE was the biggest pain in the ass for deployment!

When they dropped the BDE requirement for Database developement (other than getting a 3rd Party DB package) it was a God-send!

I haven't used the DB stuff in Kylix yet, but it will be interesting to play with.

Troll Tech, Qt license?

[mughi]

Huh? How is Troll Tech evil? People wanted QT under the GPL, and lo and behold, they released it under the GPL. Seems like a nice bunch of folks to me.

Not quite. People really wanted it under the LGPL or BSD licenses, just like GTK+, FLTK, FOX, wxWindows, etc.

One of the problems (unless you follow Stallman's manifesto) is that although the Free version is free for open-source, their commercial licenses are structured so that if at any point in time your software project is touched by a free (free, non-commercial, acedemic, etc) version of Qt, you may never at any later time buy a commercial license and release your software commercially.

Re:Troll Tech, Qt license?

[mark-t]

This is inapplicable to Kylix. Purchasers of it have permission to produce and distribute open or closed source, and free or commercial applications, regardless of Troll Tech's licensing. The dependancy upon QT is already covered -- the license to use it in a commercial app is covered when you buy the Borland tool (strikes me as the most economical way to accomplish it too... considering the price).

I don't care for Troll Tech's licensing either, but be asssured that Kylix's dependancy on it will not create any problems in that regard.

Re:Troll Tech, Qt license?

[mughi]

This is inapplicable to Kylix

Maybe, maybe not. However, for purchasers of Kylix things seem safe.

the license to use it in a commercial app is covered when you buy the Borland tool

As long as it does cover this properly, then it's a good thing. But... one just has to be careful to start by buying it, and not using a free version for things that might ever want to branch commercially.

It seems like the Qt license itself: pay up front and there are no problems.

Re:Troll Tech, Qt license?

[mark-t]

Well... the free version can only be used to make GPL apps, which is in synch with TrollTech anyways, and by the GPL, derivative works, of course, must also be GPL unless they are put under the new license by the owners of the copyrights on the various sections of code. If that were to happen, the developer would have to purchase Kylix 3 anyways, and would simultaneously purchase the right to distribute stuff without it being GPL, even if it were dependant on QT.

Re:Troll Tech, Qt license?

[mughi]

If that were to happen, the developer would have to purchase Kylix 3 anyways, and would simultaneously purchase the right to distribute stuff without it being GPL,

Right.

even if it were dependant on QT.

No. Not according to all the TrollTech info. Unless Borland has some new clause in their Qt packaging. You wouldn't happen to have the relevent sections of Borland's license, would you? (They don't seem to have it up separately)

Re:Troll Tech, Qt license?

[mark-t]

Not according to all the TrollTech info. Unless Borland has some new clause in their Qt packaging. You wouldn't happen to have the relevent sections of Borland's license, would you?

No, but as I mention elsewhere in this slashdot topic, I was in a forum on this topic with a Borland developer once, and I learned that the Borland license that you purchase was to include Trolltech's commercial license with respect to how you can distribute applications made with C++ Builder.

Re:Troll Tech, Qt license?

[Omnifarious]

Ahh, so you wanted it under the LGPL so you could make money and Trolltech couldn't. How very well-spirited and thoughtful of you.

Stability and speed?

[FooBarWidget]

Have they finally improved stability and speed? Kylix 1 and 2 both felt very slow (because of all the Wine stuff), and somehow Kylix 2 crashes when I try to save a project.
To be honest, I'm disappointed at Kylix. It does not provide the quality I expect from Borland.
Somebody please tell me they've improved stability and speed!

And what's new in Kylix 3? Is there something new in Kylix 3? I don't even know what has changed between Kylix 1 and Kylix 2 (certainly not stability).

Re:MS

[dthable]

Also Visual Studio has the crapest development environment I've ever used and the help is shite.

Must be the reason that more IDEs copy the Visual Studio layout for their own applications. We've got KDevelop, JBuilder, Eclipse, ProjectBuilder,...

C++ ABI issues?

[FooBarWidget]

C++ ABI in Linux has had many issues. C++ binaries produced in EGCS, GCC 2.95.x, 2.96.x, 3.x, and possibly the upcoming 3.2 (I read something about breaking compatibility to fix a bug in the mailing list) are all incompatible.
How does Borland address this issue? Or does it only produce binaries for one specific configuration?

Re:C++ ABI issues?

[FooBarWidget]

Then how do they want to link to QT? Or any other library on the system?

Re:wine

[uradu]

> That's why it's an odd dependency

That wasn't odd at all. They already had a full IDE for win32 which they wanted ported to Linux ASAP, and using winelib was the quickest way. That would buy them time to then rewrite it natively at their leisure. The compiler OTOH emits native code that requires only Qt. While the IDE itself is written in Delphi, some parts of it aren't (like the code editor) or might possibly use win32-isms, so it wasn't a simple recompile with the Linux compiler.

Re:debugger

[mmmbeer]

Delphi has integrated buffer overrun checking built into the langauge, which is why you may miss it in the debugger (It's called "Range Checking", look into it). As far as I know, they debuggers have the exact same feature set since Delphi 4ish / C++ Builder 4ish.

Re:MS

[uradu]

> KDevelop

Because nothing new comes from the K people, it's all just rehashes of existing software.

> JBuilder

Like VS? You must be kidding me. How exactly? If anything VS.NET copied copious amounts of ideas from JBuilder and Delphi--such as tabbed editors, the task list, the enhanced property editor, etc.

Re:Has Borland dropped their dependency on Qt yet?

[Anonymous Coward]

> People wanted QT under the GPL...

No, we wanted it under the LGPL, like the rest of the libraries.

Trolltech chose the GPL instead, because it let them pretend to be open, when in fact it does the opposite, by forcing commercial developers use a proprietary license for Qt.

I find it interesting that the original post, that raised a valid concern, was modded down to (Score:-1, Flamebait), while the above post, that states an obvious falsehood, gets modded up to (Score:4, Interesting). Does Trolltech employ astroturfers?

Speed?

[IamTheRealMike]

Maybe this was just me, but when I last tried Kylix 2 I found it incredibly slow and buggy. This is such a shame, as Delphi is excellent. I put this down to it being a winelib app, is this still the case? Can anyone who's used it for serious work tell me how it holds up?

thanks -mike

Re:Nag screens?!?!

[bmetzler]

Before time limited apps there was missing functionality (what the parent was refering to).

As far as I know, Kylix isn't time-limited either. So missing functionality must be the determining feature for which constitutes "shareware". I would still maintain though that this isn't shareware, because it's released for a specific purpose with a specific feature set. Next thing you know, someone will be complaining that Borland releases a "Personal" edition for less money, but with less features.

-Brent

Kylix Toolchain

[Vardamir]

Does anyone know if it is possible to use some sort of toolchain with Kylix to cross-compile software for architectures other than x86?

Re:Has Borland dropped their dependency on Qt yet?

[mark-t]

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

I don't know about the other apps you mentioned, but if you purchase Kylix, regardless what happens to Trolltech, you have the right to create and distribute apps you create with it however you like. Any licensing changes made by Trolltech can't apply retroactively, so the stuff you get with Kylix will still be fairly licensed to you to use in whatever manner you want. Okay, you may not be able to link with their latest libs, but you'll have the right to distribute the libs you got with Kylix with applications that use them anyways!

This won't be a big problem because you won't be able to link with those libs with g++ or gcc -- only C++ Builder for Linux. As for Kylix 3 Open, the issue of linking with QT is already covered by Borland's licensing restriction on it which requires that applications built with it be GPL'd, which goes back in synch with TrollTech's license policy anyways.

Wanted: platform agnostic environment

[smittyoneeach]

We're close with this. In some glorious future, there will be a C++Builder that doesn't care if it's running under Linux, 'Doze, or OS X for that matter.
While we're at it, the groovy IDE is nice, but making all of the plumbing interchangeable is a Good Thing.
Don't mind paying for well thought-out product, just don't want the blood-on-goatskin experience of dealing with Redmond.
I guess CodeWarrior specializes in that sort of platform gymnastics, but their pricing for the Palm version didn't excite a purchase out of me...
Anyway, I had gaffed off the upgrade from C++Builder 5 in anticipation of this...

Re:Geography crush course.

[red_gnom]

.
Delhi is in India, but Delphi is in different country.
It is in BorLand.

Re:Has Borland dropped their dependency on Qt yet?

[mark-t]

That's exactly what I was saying. If you've paid for Kylix, you'll have Trolltech's commercial license already. So you _can_ take option 1, because Trolltech will have already received compensation from you indirectly through Borland (assuming, of course, that you did get the commercial version).

Re:MS

[dthable]

The overall design is based on the model from VS. Class Explorer, Form Editor, Message Window, etc. All Borland had to do was remove the MDI based controls and used tabbed editing screen instead. I don't know if I would call Borland's design 100% orginial. Can't comment on VS.NET too much, since I've never used it.

Disappointed.

[peterzen]

I became quite excited to try it. While being completely satisfied with the GNU environment, I'd *really* like to use a fast, straightforward development environment, such as Turbo C 2.0 (do you guys remember *that*?) I know several years passed by since then, but thought Kylix is getting closer and closer to something that makes sense just like their DOS based tools did.

I usually stop the installation of a "commercial" application when it fails to get RPM packages housed on my Debian (sid) system. I didn't stop now, backed perhaps by my respect of their good products (Delphi excluded).

Kylix's rpm based install tool failed, too (surprise!). I didn't stop tough, not even after hacking together a wrapper script around rpm (in order to get along the "failing" package dependencies (needless to say I have all neccessary libs/packages installed). I even tried to alienalize & install the provided rpm's -- no luck either (postinstall scripts still failing).

I still didn't give up at this point, had a look inside the package contents for another way to get around. After I've realized they contain wine libraries, all my interest & excitement suddenly disappeared. In fact, turned into massive disappointment.

The GNU toolbox works perfectly, there are excellent, graphical, native debugging tools too (DDD, for instance)... no fancy IDE, F9 shortcut, sure, but anyway... why should I bother?

Which brings us to the same old mantra about RedHat vs other distros. Not to mention the quality, resource footprint (yes, I've upgraded my box since the TC2 times :-)) and reliability of an app that's apparently been "ported" from Windows. For developing C++ applications on/for Linux.

Not for me, thanks. Am I the only one?

Re:Disappointed.

[sebmol]

Kylix uses Wine exclusively for its own IDE. None of the binaries you produce will require any kind of emulation layer. They will need Qt running though.

Preprocessor as a language is no better.

[NDSalerno]

You got to be kidding me. I would never write code like that. This kind of programming is what makes MFC a bad library. Your C/C++ macro preprocessor is a tool, not a language. Don't use it like a language. Here is a short list why:

• Can't trace preprocessor code during debugging.
• Can't inspect the value of a #define during debugging. I prefer const variables.
• You undermine the code completion because it doesn't know about the existence of the property. When you press '.' or '->' you will not see your property in the popup window.
• Can very easily introduce obscure bugs that can be hard to find.

Take a look at MFC message maps to understand why using the preprocessor as a language is a mistake. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. Altering the language can be a good thing. Adding a new feature is not the only criterion for altering the language. If the alteration helps productivity then I am for the alteration being done. C++, especially, could really use it.

Re:Preprocessor as a language is no better.

[akihabara]

# Can't inspect the value of a #define during debugging.

You can with the latest GCC and GDB, which can expand arbitrary macros, though the implementation is less than perfect in GDB.

Re:Preprocessor as a language is no better.

[informer]

Take a look at the latest VC++.NET Complier / VS.NET IDE & Debugger for a mostly satisfactory solution to these problems you listed. Most noteably, code completion, error messages improved, and debugging allows inspection of defines.

I'm not quite sure about tracing pre-processor code, and I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean either. By tracing do you mean stepping into each line of code that is inserted by the pre-processor? I dont think it can do that but I haven't tried.

Still gotta buy...

[lordgert]

It's slick to be able to port our apps easily in Delphi and C++ from Windows to Linux, but for those who are used to developing there, they still have to pay the big bucks for a C++ Builder or Delphi license under Windows -- Kylix Open or not.

Borland also has free Windows IDE's...

[sonny317]

It should be noted that Borland also releases free as in beer "Personal" versions of C++ Builder and Delphi.

Both are similar in features and license to Kylix Open Edition (the Delphi personal description specifically mentions its intended use is to create "non-commercial Windows ... applications". Basically they include all the standard gui VCL components included in the non-free (Professional and Enterprise) versions of C++ Builder and Delphi (just with a different license) minus the data access / web components. Having used Delphi 5 Enterprise extensively at work, I can vouch that for real-world gui and database intensive application development, these features are invaluable timesavers. However, in an educational environment as suggested by the parent post, where the focus would almost certainly be beginning or at most intermediate programming (eg. general language concepts), the Personal versions of either of these would more than suffice for any classroom needs.

In other words, while I wouldn't expect these to provide much of a shot in the arm for schools migrating to Linux, it speaks volumes for Borland and their commitment to Linux (Kylix) and its ideals (the open source-ish license of the Windows-based Personal versions).

Nasty Open License

[nilstar]

Does it still have the clause in their open-edition licence that they have permission to come in & search your premesis (to check for commercial usage) if you install their software?

Re:MS

[uradu]

> Class Explorer

Borland has had that one for a LONG time, since before VS even existed. Just go check out BC++ 3. Not integrated as a dockable pane, but that's simply an evolution of a prior concept into a contemporary UI metaphor.

> Form Editor

Huh? Oh, you mean the VB form designer. Let's not lump VB features together with VC features, since the latter certainly won't benefit from any of the features of the former. The whole term Visual Studio is really a misnomer, because it's certainly not an integrated environment, but rather two completely and utterly unrelated IDEs. Within the context of this thread I will assume VS to mean VC. And as far as the form designer in VC is concerned, well, Borland has had the Resource Workshop for a very long time, also long before VC's time, and that offered the same paradigm.

> Message Window

Well, you kinda NEED that one with MFC development, unlike in JBuilder, so I'm not sure it qualifies as a feature as much as a shortcoming.

And the whole docking tool window concept is hardly Microsoft's creation either. Corel and Lotus have been using it for a decade, long before Microsoft adopted it and put its own visual style on it.

But when do the training wheels come off?

[extrasolar]

But when do the training wheels come off? Either you learn to adapt to new environments easily, or you use an environment that will always be there and will always provide what you need it to do.

While you can rely on a language, you shouldn't need to rely on the tool. Especially proprietary tools.

This is probably one reason a lot of really good developers prefer the unix tools, mostly emacs or vi rather than the latest fad, because a fad is exactly what it is. One year its C++ and Visual Studio, the next year its Java, now its .NET and C#. Yet Unix people are still using the same tools they've always used, emacs or vi, and just drop in a new compiler and extend the syntax rules in the editor for the new programming language. On proprietary systems, developers purchase a new system.

So I think you're right when saying that developing in a "visual" environment is easier and you can catch on to programming quicker. But I believe that investing some more time into a "unix" tool is more valuable for your programming career. Actually, this isn't my idea--something I read on USENET.

And that's why I am spending time learning emacs. Because I don't think I'm wasting my time.

OT: If they could get this used in schools...

[Peter Harris]

Yep, you want something that is simple enough to not overload your brain with details while you are trying to grasp the general principles.

Examples:
Python's Tkinter module (from within IDLE or just a Python shell)
FLUID, the almost unbelievably easy C++ IDE for libfltk).

There are richer IDEs with more features, but in their respective computer languages, these would be hard to beat for simplicity. I think there's a pretty cool Scheme one too, but I forget what it's called.

Download for Kylix 3 is NOT yet available !

[Taco Cowboy]

Kylix 3 is NOT yet available for downloaded.

If you go to this page :

http://borland.com/products/downloads/download_kyl ix.html#

you will see that the latest version of Kylix (open version) is version 2.

So, who has the url for downloading Kylix 3 ?

Care to share ?

Announcement, Not Release

[fm6]

The product hasn't been released yet! Not even the non-free versions. The web site doesn't make this clear, I admit.

__property - Re:standard CPP

[glenebob]

If Bjarn Stroustrup has anything to say about it, it won't happen. I wrote him an email about this a couple years back and he replied that he believes (or believed anyhow) that properties don't belong in C++. Without his support it's unlikely it will become a standard any time soon. Unfortunate :-( I think it's just a case of providing us with as many tools as possible and laying the responsibility of proper use on the developer, which *is* what C++ is all about, right?

Re:__property - Re:standard CPP

[Zordak]

Now I see that we need to form a special interest group: The Consortium of Programmers who want Properties in C Plus Plus, or CPP-CPP for short. Now we just need somebody with some extra money lying around to host the domain http://cpp-cpp.org and we can start gathering support, and before you know it, we'll have bought our very own U.S. Senator! Huzzah!!!