Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Delphi Renaissance

Posted by Hemos on from the back-from-beyond-the-pale dept.

bongo69 writes "The TIOBE Programming Community Index is reporting that Delphi is experiencing a revival, this coincides with Borland recently releasing Delphi 2005 allowing users to target both win32 and .net platforms, which to some, is a welcome alternative for .net developers reluctant to use Microsoft Visual Studio or the opensource alternative SharpDevelop."

14 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by bay43270 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Numbers are nice, but I'd also like to know why. Does anyone know what advantages Delphi has over Visual Studio and mono products?

    1. Re:Why? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Numbers are nice, but I'd also like to know why. Does anyone know what advantages Delphi has over Visual Studio and mono products?

      I don't know about the newest product, but Delphi used to be better for creating mail-able "packaged" applications, while VB targeted custom software. In other words, if you wanted to make a software package (boxed) to sell to many companies, go with Delphi. But VB was often preferred for very customized internal use projects.

      Regarding Mono, VB and Delphi seem to more faithfully stick to the event-driven "component" model where each GUI widget handles its own events and attributes (or at least events and attributes are closely associated with a given GUI widget). Java stuff got away from this and turned into a messier model in my opinion. I think Java stuff tried to return to SmallTalk MVC models or something. I find component-event-driven the best GUI model for most custom business software.

      Another thing is that coordinate-based GUI's as found in VB and Delphi are often better able to handle picky customers better than the hierarchically-nested "flow"-based GUI setups (such as that found in HTML) found in many Java products. The flow-based approach is perhaps more logical, but customers are not always logical, and want to tweak the GUI in such a way that is difficult to do in flow-based GUI systems. With coordinate-based GUI's you just move stuff to where the customer wants it without worrying about which containing frame or group it belongs to. I have encountered very picky customers before, and they don't want an earfull about nested containers getting in the way of putting things where they want to see it.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  2. Delphi big in the UK by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually Delphi is still quite a popular in the UK
    (http://www.cwjobs.co.uk/JS/JobResults.asp?ref erre r=none&SiteID=2&MarketID=14&IndustryID=1&Mode=&Sea rch=Ind&PageNum=1&Industry=IT+%26+Internet&RankByT itle=1&JobType1=&PostedDays=7&Keywords=delphi&Sort =1&Locations=)

    It was SO FAR ahead of the field when it first came out, I actually did my first non-unix based programming on it and was very impressed. Sadly like most Borland products, while being technically superior to their rival offerings they have just never got the market share they deserved.

  3. Novell is porting SharpDevelop by bflong · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's interesting to note that Novell is porting SharpDevelop to Mono.
    See http://www.monodevelop.com/

    --
    Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
  4. Poor ol' Delphi... by ElGuapoGolf · · Score: 5, Interesting


    I used Delphi in my first programming job out of College. Initially I chuckled over the fact that it was Pascal, but eventually grew to learn and love Object Pascal.

    It wasn't so much the language that made it great, it was the way the IDE, Debugger and compiler all played so nicely together. And yes, a C++ version was available as well. It was all of the ease of Visual Basic (and let's be honest, more) but without the bullshit of being stuck with some horrible language and the pain of trying to manage runtime distribution. Delphi compiled all dependencies into your binary, if you so wished. No more dll hell, at least, as far as your Delphi applications went.

    It also had the relatively unheard of concept (at least in the windows world, at that time) of direct database access. You didn't have to mess with ODBC. You could write your corporate app for in-house use, and just let them change parameters in configuration screen, use them to connect to a database yourself. No freakin ODBC control panel applet to mess with. Nirvana, I tell you.

    The VCL was another nice Borland item. It was their Visual Component Library (I think) and it was basically a wrapper around the standard Win32 controls/forms. Worked very well, and even made it over to linux with Kylix.

    Unfortunately, Borland subscribed to the commodore school of marketing. The best place to see Borland adverts was in Borland targeted publications. The choir was already converted, but they never figured that out. That combined with typical MSFT tactics (hire away their best developers, give away competing products for a song) reduced Borland to a shell of it's former self. Now they exist by pumping out JBuilder updates every 8 months and living off that revenue gravy train.

    1. Re:Poor ol' Delphi... by tgrigsby · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Back when I worked for DHL using BP7, I got a hold of the beta version of Delphi 1.0. It was code named "Wasabi", the EXE was, IIRC, AppBuilder, and it came on six diskettes. It had a tiny subset of the VCL palette, and no real way to talk to a database.

      And I was in love.

      I contracted with a company to move their DOS apps to Delphi after it came out officially. We started out using Delphi 1, but quickly moved to 2 when it was released. Skipped version 3, went to 4, then 5. Awesome stuff.

      I agree completely with your statement about the "Commodore School of Marketing." Mirco$oft did hire some of their architects away, but that's not what killed Borland. It was the marketing.

      That and the completely stupid attempt to tie their development products to their database products. The BDE would have been fine if they'd supported a decent way to talk to ODBC. I was among many who tried desperately to get Delphi to talk to something other than Paradox. Interbase may have been cool, but none of my clients wanted it.

      Then Peter Blair came up with Titan, and it was a new day. I could at least get Delphi to talk to Btrieve. It was fast as hell, and the guys I did the port for used Btrieve exclusively. Pretty soon I had tools written that generated DDLs on the fly so we could alter the schema without recompiling the EXE. Suh-weet.

      Later, when we needed to talk to SQL Server and Oracle, we used ODBCExpress. Once again, fast as hell, and we didn't have to worry about the BDE. It was the best of both worlds. ADO components were an add-on in version 5 and standard in version 6. Bigger and better.

      The components available for every concievable purpose have swelled into the millions, the compiler is devastatingly fast -- I'm currently using version 7 -- and it now supports .NET. Delphi 2005 has new extensions to the IDE, component libraries, and the language itself that will be as revolutionary as the original Delphi.

      And yet, I'll bet they continue to struggle. Why? Easy. How did you first hear of Delphi 2005? I found out because I went on their site looking for a utility to autogen documentation. Otherwise, I wouldn't have known. When I was looking for a job a few months ago, I would mention Delphi to a recruiter and they would actually laugh out loud. "Come on!" they'd say, "Delphi is dead. Do you have Visual Basic and .NET?" What does that say about Borland? Have they learned from their mistakes? It's time to start publicly throwing down the gauntlet. Either you believe in your product or you don't.

      Borland, grow a spine and advertise like you mean it.

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    2. Re:Poor ol' Delphi... by ntruick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Before I begin, let me state that I am a reformed Delphi bigot. I am only such because one can only bang their head against a wall in confusion for only so long. I have been using Delphi since version 1, and have one of the most complete (and useful) Delphi libraries of any Delphi developer I have known. My copy of "Secrets of Delphi 2" is still my most valued tome in my collection, followed closely by Konopka's second "Developing Custom Delphi Components" book. I earned my certification for Delphi 5 in 2001, and attended seven consecutive conferences from 1996 through 2002.

      I attended the Philadelphia Borland conference in 1999, and was in the computer lab filling out an online survey regarding my conference and Borland experience. The question asked me for three areas where I felt that Borland could show some improvement. My answer: Marketing, marketing, and marketing. Not an unfamiliar complaint for Borland-philes tired of MS dominance in the corporate application development arena.

      A staffer who worked in R&D was looking over my shoulder at my response, and asked me to enlighten him on my response to that question. That discussion lasted 45 minutes. I vented everything from my appreciation for the technological superiority that Borland products provide compared to MS products, to the ongoing frustration of having to inform IT managers that rumors of Borland's demise are vastly exaggerated. Borland has constantly and consistently placed the burden on the developer to be advocates for their products, while providing no voice of their own. The vast majority of IT management have limited exposure to the technical details of competing products, so they focus on colorful ads and glitzy white papers. Borland's attitude can almost be described as "snobbish," choosing not to lower themselves to advertising games or boorish attacks at MS technology. Meanwhile, a frustrated Delphi community feels abandoned and cast adrift, due to the great expense of money, resources, and TIME spent becoming experts of our craft using their tools. By the way, that staffer I was telling you about? It was Simon Thornhill, who later became the Vice President in charge of RAD Products (including Delphi), and is now the Vice President and General Manager in charge of .NET Solutions. He was very attentive during our discussion, and for the next couple of conferences always took time to speak to me if our paths crossed.

      When Microsoft gave Borland that $125 million payoff (which I believe was to keep Borland afloat so that the DOJ wouldn't consider them a monopoly), the Delphi developer community saw that as an opportunity for Borland to finally be able to complete with MS on a level playing field. Delphi (version 7) versus Visual Studio .NET (version 1)...do you want to risk investing in new, untested technology or put your trust in a product that has been around for more than six years and seven iterations? Once again, Borland not only dropped the ball, but kicked it out of bounds, down the block, and into the mulcher.

      Borland will be around for as long as Microsoft needs them. Whenever the heat picks up from the DOJ, Microsoft will "buy some tech" from Borland just to keep them afloat. For more than fifteen years, the story has been that Microsoft will buy Borland. It will never happen, because, right now, Borland is Microsoft's only competitor, and, to a community's continued frustration, it's not even a competition.

  5. Re:Languages die for a reason by vasqzr · · Score: 2, Interesting


    In the early days, Delphi was not just a 'Pascal for Windows', but a much-faster-executing alternative to the other RAD system out there - Visual Basic. Remember how slow VB was until version 5 or 6, when it actually became compiled?

    Another reason why it's so popular, is it's based on Pascal. Which is much easier for many people to program than C/C++

    Borland's early C/C++ products for Windows were much faster than Microsofts as well. They did make many mistakes however (remember OWL?)

    Go to http://groups.google.com/ and look for old newsgroup discussions of Visual Basic vs Delphi. Fun reading.

  6. Delphi 2005 - A Winner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Delphi 2005 is really good value for money. For the same price as previous Delphi releases you get C#Builder, Delphi for Win32 and Delphi for .NET all in the same IDE. And Borland have enhanced the Win32 language too, they haven't just plugged it into the new IDE. So they show that they do actually care about the rest of us that do not believe that .NET really delivers that much benefit (and quite a few negatives actually) to end users.

    Unlike Microsoft, Borland doesn't believe in pushing one platform. They have no specific platform agenda. When you buy Borland tools you know you're getting something that preserves your existing investments well- be they multiple platforms or simply your existing code base. For example, it is much easier to move code from Delphi for Win32 to Delphi for .NET than VB6 to VB.NET.

    That, and all the enhancements to the IDE such as refactoring, sync-edit, and MDA developement make Delphi 2005 a winner!

  7. Re:Visual Studio by Lucas+Membrane · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I went to two presentations by traveling road shows about a year and a half back. The Borland guy using Delphi wrote all kinds of interesting apps in seconds. Never hit a problem, was able to handle any kind request from the audience (can you do this ...), etc, etc.

    The Microsoft VS C# guy started about 15 minutes late, since he couldn't figure out how to increase the font size in his IDE so that the audience could read the screens that he was demoing. He gave up on that. So, we couldn't read his screen too well, but it was no loss. He didn't get very much to work. He did show us screen after screen of inscrutable WSDL automatically generated for us, but he never got it to do 1/10th as much as the Borland guy accomplished in roughly the same time.

    Maybe it would be premature to buy Borland's product based on just those two demos, but you'd have to be religiously insane to buy Microsoft's on the same evidence.

  8. PascalScript? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm using it. :-) And I've evaluated a lot of other IDEs. The nice thing about Delphi is that it supports the code-to-the-metal kind of developer and the RAD developer. You have the power and the ease-of-use, and that's not just a marketing blurb.

    Maybe if they create PascalScript and merge it into OOPascal we can have both. If you don't supply a type, then a scriptish dynamic variable/object is assumed. VB allowed this (although they did it in a kind of ugly way).

    Anyhow, one nice thing about Pascal's syntax is that the type and scope declarations comes *after* the variable declaration. The variable name is more important than the type, and thus easier to spot if it comes before type declarations. The giant list of types and keywords preceding the variable name has always bothered me in C-derived languages, such as Java.

    I hope the next generation of languages learns this lesson and incorporates it. (Although some people prefer the types before for whatever reason, I should point out.)

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  9. Re:Price and licensing killed Delphi by michaelas · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I agree 100%. I am not sure they would have done any better charging less, but my impression is they locked too many hobbiest out.

    After all, that's how linux started.

    They should have licensed it based on third party add-ins. For example. $100 buys you the full version of Delphi. All components, all database clases, etc.

    You want to connect to Starbase? (their version of CVS) That's an extra $400. Oh you want data modeling, that's $500, etc.

    This way even the hobbiest can pump out quality apps that can be used up and down the Delphi chain. Current the stanard version of Delphi is so stripped that vendors have to ship multiple versions of their product for each version of Delphi. ...Michael...

  10. I just wish they'd by advocate_one · · Score: 2, Interesting

    keep Kylix up to date with Delphi and not let it wither...

    Better yet, why have Kylix, when you could just have Delphi with a Linux runtime to support the environment.

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  11. Reaching for the light switch by MarkedMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I used Delphi for a number of years. With it, we created really useful, truly OO design, really beautiful stuff that substantially simplified everything. As an example, we designed a GUI for industrial ink jet printers. (These printers resemble the 24 pin dot matrix printers of two decades ago in print quality, but can print at 750 ft/min from 1 inch away on the bottom of an aluminum soda can.) They have all kinds of weirdness such as text can only be 5, 7, 9, 11, 13 or 24 dots high, and vertical position must "snap" to the next available slot. Dates, serial counters and so forth are done with special control codes. I could go on and on, but suffice it to say, these are strange rangers. We made message objects with field sub-objects. When these were handed to the On-screen display stuff, they created and drew themselves with special bolderization and colors for the date (and other) fields. When they were handed to the printer, they formatted themselves appropriately and chatted merrily away through an assigned serial port.
    I can hear you all saying that you can do that with any OO language, but all I can say was that everything in Delphi (or rather, most everything) just felt logical and right. I never felt I was shoe-horning or forcing things. Have you ever gone into a room and the light switch is exactly where you put out your hand, the window latch turns in the way you expect it, the desk is just the right height and you reach down to adjust the chair and your hand falls exactly on the lever? That's what Delphi felt like. God, I miss it.
    As for C or C++, god-as-my-witness, C WAS MEANT AS A HIGHER LEVEL ABSTRACTION FOR ASSEMBLER! The idea of taking a wonderful, elegant assembler-abstraction language and writing a word processor in it just gives me the screaming-nightmares. It's like building a mechanical clock out of legos; amazing when done once, masochistic when done repeatedly.