Slashdot Mirror
Borland Delphi and CBuilder for Linux.
jelwell writes "Borland has announced Linux support for Delphi and CBuilder. The tools are scheduled for a mid-2000 release. I wonder if they plan on integrating their products with any window managers/distributions?" Infoworld has the story - which also says, "To seed interest in the Java-on-Linux movement, Inprise this week will provide a free, downloadable preview of the JBuilder just-in-time
compiler for Linux that supports many Java 2 Enterprise Edition specifications."
All I can say is.. WOW. This will be SO nice. Finally, a relatively easy way for applications to run under *nix and Win32. Just a simple recompile..
I know, I know, GNU tools on Win32 work, but not in the graphical interface area. I've always stuck by Visual C++ for Win32 development, but this is DEFINATLY a good reason to check out borlands products..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
Nor a bad thing. It's just another piece of proprietary software that I'm not interested in running on my freedom platform. I hope you won't be seduced either.
Linux hasn't needed Borland since the day it became powerful enough to run GCC and serve as its own development platform.
Some of you are euphoric every time some commercial vendor offers a piece of ``support'' for Linux, because it means that the popularity of your favorite operating system is increasing. So you rejoice at the popularity increase even if you don't plan to use the newly ported product.
Some, like me, would use a freedom platform even if it wasn't popular, and would use freedom software even if it wasn't as good as a proprietary alternative in terms of convenience or performance or other measures. How about you?
Many of the company's other products, however, are produced using Delphi, which is currently only available for the Win* OSes. With the addition of an awesome programming language (Delphi), together with another cool development tool (C++ builder), linux has indeed taken a big step closer to world domination.
Why? Everything is a circle. Developers attract users, users attract developers. Eventually, you reach a critical mass, and the two groups will automatically begin attracting each other, even if the underlying product is shitty (ala windows). For OSes that have not reached this point, its critical that simple to use development tools are made available. If my past experiences with Borland are any indication, we are up for quite a treat.
Just a few things that came to mind. I
-- Slashdot sucks.
And you can download it for free from here
I'm so happy for the coming release of Delphi and C++ Builder for Linux. But I don't understand why Imprise take JBuilder for Linux as more important.
If Java is really "Write Once, Run Anywhere", it is not so urgent for Java Programmer to write java under Linux.
What linux is really lack of, is the RAD tools, especailly for in-house development. If we want the company replace all the win9x inside the Desktop, Delphi or C++ Builder should release first.
If there is a way that I can use it to write
free software I am interested. If you need a copy of Delphi to compile it the resulting code is not
free software. Maybe they can offer a runtime lib as free software so you can't use the real nice desing tools without paying for them, but anyone can re-compile apps.
On the other hand for "In House" apps it will be nice.
Erlang Developer and podcaster
You may not want to trade your liberty for a good software but they are a lot of people that are bound to closed software right now. This is the first step to allow them to expand their view to free software as well.
To paraphrase RMS, it is better to have closed applications on a free OS than free applications on a closed OS. With Linux (and *BSD) we control the foundations to build free applications on and these are strong foundations. RMS did the right thing by beginning to create a free OS rather than free applications
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Yes. In fact many developers who like RAD tools and are afraid to get their feet wet in real programming have stuck with Windows for just this reason. There was no "easy" development tools for Linux. But now there is.
In a year, we should be seeing a lot of development going on in Linux. Helped, of course, by the fact that the code will be cross platform compilable. That's important too. Not just the tools on Linux, but the ability to compile the code you developed for Windows on Linux. "When Kylix is released, virtually overnight there will be hundreds of thousands of applications available on the Linux platform, and many will be ports from Windows,"
I can't wait for the preview...
-Brent--
It is important to realize that Delphi is much different than Visual Basic. Delphi is pretty much identical to C++ Builder (actually CB is based on Delphi). Delphi does not use an interpreted language like most RAD tools do. It generates native code.
The major benefit to using Delphi is that you can just plop down a **very** nice gui and have it work with no bugs. That lets you focus on the guts of your project. I don't know how many times I've used a GUI app on Linux that does it's job well, but has a crash/core dump bug when you pull down the wrong menu and click in the wrong place.
Delphi being released Open Source? Never going to happen. If Borland is smart, they'll release a free (at least as in beer) command line compiler so that people can compile projects written in Delphi. If you take the open source away from linux, you have nothing. Therefore, if your development tool is too expensive to be used for open source projects, the project leads will stay away from it.
Many of you don't like Delphi for Linux because it'll probably be commercial and closed source. You are totally free to have that opinion but how about putting your programming where your mouth is and contributing to the Lazarus project?
Lazarus is the class libraries for Free Pascal that emulate Delphi. They are also making and IDE. So check what you could do.
I have my doubts that it would be an open-source compiler.
Of course it is not going to be an open source compiler. Not everyone cares. Me, I would be willing to pay for a quality RAD tool for Linux. RMS does not like it; that is his prerogative. So far, Borland's tools have done me well. If they stop doing that, then maybe I will start campaining for an OSS GUI IDE.
CBuilder is not that great of a product. [...] More often than not, the "reqirements" for CB4 to make and run my program get in the way of the actual design of what I want. It is not for the faint of heart users.
I am curious as to what the problem is.
If you are looking to build a traditional C/C++ program, then you are better off with the command-line C++Builder compiler, BCC32.EXE. Treat it like GCC and you'll be in good shape. Be sure to specify the "target" as a "Console" app, or it will not work. (This is the fault of Windows, which does not provide main(), amoung other things.)
If that is not the problem, what is? Let me know, I may be able to help.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I tend to think that programmers, for the good of all programmers, should stick to 100% open tools built using GPL'ed tools and libraries because I believe in and hope for an evolution of programming into a true profession like medicince and law where all the code (laws, medical techniques) is (are) open and more or less freely available and it is skilled people who are valuable. Software is only valuable as a product because compilation is, in effect, encryption that hides technique. It makes programmers into manufacturers, wholly dependent on their salaries from companies owned by people who can't code at all. In a world where software is difficult and expensive to distribute, this was natural (and perfectly okay in my book -- I'm not a socialist).
We are now, however, moving into a world where software is easy and almost free to distribute. The software "industry" is no longer economically necessary. In fact, I think its a dinosaur. An antique. I truly believe that we will all be more productive (and rich) when all software is free because programmers will become people valued for their skill and productivity alone. We will all be able to use one another's knowledge (just as doctors and lawyers do now) so we can spend less time doing the same things over and over again. The pace of programming innovation will accelerate dramatically and the economic benefits of computing (faster business cycles and lower costs) will be magnified by that amount of time we no longer spend building the same basics at every employer and we instead concentrate on making existing software fit the local need.
All of that said, that is not yet the world we live in. While I want us all to be using open tools, a lot of businesses have a heavy investment in specific "enterprise" technologies such as Delphi and C++ Builder. I for one welcome these tools on the Linux platform. I'll prbably use them in my workplace.
The software I develop for the open source world will still use the GNU tools and be GPL'ed and use automake/autoconf and be written for maximum portability.
I also look forward to seeing tools like Kdevelop continue to mature.
While the software industry lives, let the commercial vendors come. Just try to keep your skills up in the open tools too.
This is what makes free software unstoppable. The commercial interests can take over the business market through the gullibility of the PHBs, but no one can take away your gcc, or stop you from giving away your own code.
I believe all software will one day be free and that it will be considered fiduciary misconduct to buy an operating system, but until that day, there really is room enough for us all.
This is a great announcement. Borland's tools are great, and in a cross-platform development house like ours, it'll be great to eventually have people on multiple platforms using at least some of the same tools (if only we could get Solaris versions). People here who are familiar with Windows environments only may be convinced to move over to Linux as more tools *they are already familiar with* get ported to Linux. This is a Good Thing (tm).
If we could move 50% or more of our developers to Linux or Solaris, I'd be very happy. I'd like to see managers like myself be able to make the transition also. Such a transition, though, would require the availability of necessary evil tools such as project management software available on UNIX/Linux (and with the same level of functionality as, say, Microsoft Project and Rational Requisite Pro).
Whether or not these tools are open source is irrelevant to my bosses, who are making business decisions, not community outreach decisions. Our technical department actually does support Open Source software, but we also know that when a job needs to be done, if the best tool is not open source, then get the closed source tool...
What really matters is not the licensing model of the tools, but their availability on the platform. Businesses are used to having to decide whether or not to accept stupid licensing terms, but they like to have the right tools to choose from. Lots of developers use Delphi on Windows, and if they use it on Linux, also, that is good for Linux, whether or not their software is open source.
It would be nice if all software could be open source, but that is not the reality of our current marketplace, and so if Linux wants to continue to expand its user base, this is indeed good news.
Maybe Borland/Inprise will even change some of their licensing to allow free software developers to redistribute Borland runtimes libraries with freely redistributable software, and to allow open source distribution of code generated using their code generation tools. Incidentally, Frameworks generated by, say, C++ builder, should already be open sourcable since a developer will add and modify it enough to create most programs to make the copyright their own - though I haven't looked into the fine print on the Borland/Inprise licenses in the last 5 years...
o/~ we are pissed, we are pissed, we have to resist... o/~ - ec8or
IIRC (it's been a while) it's only included in the professional editions and is not installed by default.
OWL is wonderful if you already have code written in it that you want to port. (I occasionally see an app with the giveaway OWL "check" button)
-- Slashdot sucks.
You raise some interesting points, which I (perhaps incorrectly) summarize as follows:
... But that should be verifiable via other tools on the market.]
... but it would hardly be the vision of the future you appear to be worried about.
(1) High-level development environments help non-programmers pretend to be programmers and so are bad (in the sense that many of the problems with commercially available software are due to "programming" by these "programmers").
(2) Proprietary software is of its nature untrustworthy as it is impossible to tell whether or not what is actually being done and what is claimed to be done are in sync.
(3) The use of proprietary high-level development software on Linux will destroy the advantages that Linux has over Windows.
None of these are particularly new arguments, and I have sympathy on some levels for them. But I submit that you have overstated your case:
(1) Even if RAD enpowers poor programmers to write bad programs more quickly, the logic of open source overcomes it: in an open-source environment, programs developed via RAD will be just as open to review and fixes by other programmers. In fact, arguably open-source communities should be immune to this particular danger --- the more seasoned developers in the community will fix the mistakes of the newbies, who should learn from it.
(2) Proprietary software may require a higher level of scrutiny than non-proprietary software. But as long as the tools to analyse the software exist and are reliable and trusted, this shouldn't be a problem. [You say: "can someone also tell me what this Delphi release -really- puts into the binary?"
Now, granted, there is a greater _time_ investment in running such verifications. But, for the average programmer, the time hit is no greater than that involved in reading the source code to their development tool --- moreover, the average programmer doesn't do that anyway, they just go off of the reputation of the tool. (That's true even now; the days when every linux programmer was a kernel hacker are behind us).
(3) The advantages Linux has over Windows are largely in server software and the kernel, not in client-side user software. That's beginning to change, but remains largely true. Even if all of the things you fear about proprietary RAD tools were true, their use in client-side software would hardly destroy the advantages Linux has over Windows; moreover, such tools won't be used in kernel development _until the parts of the community responsible for such development believe in their efficiency_. In other words: they'll only get the chance to destroy Linux's advantages if they work well enough to be given that chance, in which case it's unlikely that they'll actually do it.
Badly implemented proprietary RAD software could easily have the unfortunate effect of splitting the Linux community into multiple camps: old-school programmers focusing on the kernel, system-level software, and server-side software, and RAD programmers focusing on client-side end-user software. That would be bad, as it would encourage the two communities to grow in different directions and result in a dichotomous view of what the OS should be
Linux can live without GNU.
/bin/* /lib/libc.*'
su -c 'rm -f
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
...the BDE is buggy as hell...
:-)
While past versions of the BDE have been rather unstable, newer releases are much better. I had no problems at all with BDE V5 (Delphi/Builder V4).
It's the main reason my company switched over to C++.
The BDE (Borland Database Engine, for those who don't know) is a library. It is independent of language and compiler. Object Pascal or C++, it does not matter.
Now, if you mean that your company switched to MS Visual C++ and DAO, fine, but say so. (Although I find the idea of switch to DAO to avoid bugs hilarious.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I think you hit the nail on the head.
One can imagine a future where a free software platform of Linux, KDE and/or Gnome, KOffice, etc. could actually be considered a competitive business desktop to Windows/Office for $500 cheaper. The big hitch is the inevitable in-house corporate applications written with VisualBasic, Delphi, VC, DBase, Lotus Notes, etc. Wine might be an answer, but obviously, the Delphi people are now in the best position to save some money on desktop software when the time comes.
Products like this, while not "free" are a critical piece of the free softwar puzzle simply because they open the door for migration.
Furthermore, my guess is that Linux support will appeal enough to IT managers that this move will increase Borland's Windows product sales, just so shops can hedge their long term bets against a Windows desktop.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
You seem to be interested in developing on a completely free platform as an expression of idealism. Noble enough goal and I can see how Delphi wouldn't impress you.
Others are interested in the actual capturing of majority or total market share by open source software. This is a different goal, it tolerates the expediency of closed software for a later good or special circumstance, but still maintains open is always better when possible. For these folks, Delphi is expedient, get a lot of converts to an open OS now, replace Delphi with completely free tools later.
For some, open software fits some needs, closed software fits others. They may be strong Linux advocates, but they are neutrals in the proprietary/open source/free software war. These people may be looking forward to Delphi as a long term tool, or at least until something better for their purpose is written.
The Linux commercial interests are mostly closed/open/free agnostic, they need help for their bottom line now, and never mind how. They will be very pleased by Delphi for Linux, because it means they have a tool as good or better than VB for quick in-house programming by high level programmers. This covers a lot of business programming. This might help GM believe that their VB apps might port in reasonable time for example.
Then there is Microsoft, who will not be pleased at all. One of their biggest problems right now is loss of developers, and having Delphi and C++ Builder waiting will mean that developers can switch to Linux, or *BSD probably and be productive immediately thru RAD development.
I don't think of any of these being "wrong" just different approaches to meet different goals.
Personally, it's my belief that open software is a scaling phenomenon. It works better the more people are involved with it. Makes for more testing, shallower bugs, more new ideas, more developers working at once, more common software to draw on, and better ability to beg driver support for new hardware. So I'm in the camp that is wanting to expand open software's marketshare, even if it takes closed software to do it. When you've got positive feedback on your side, you need to take advantage of it, not hold back waiting. There are elements out there who are actively trying to shut down open software, or ridicule it into oblivion. Time matters, unfortunately.
Okay, this post is partly off-topic for this sub-thread, but I wanted to get it in near the top of the discussion when sorting by Score.
Linux Today has more information about this, including:
This is not a port of Delphi or C++Builder, but rather, a completely new product.
Read the details about "Kylix" at Linux Today!
(I would post a complete copy, but that would be stealing from LT. Don't wanna do that.)
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.