[lazarus] Delphi 5, The Delphi decadence...

[Derk Benner]

<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  <DIV 
  style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black">From: 
  JFA 
  
  To: <A href="mailto:lazarus at miraclec.com" 
  title=lazarus at miraclec.com>lazarus at miraclec.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 1999 12:30 
  PM
  Subject: Re: [lazarus] Delphi 5, The 
  Delphi decadence...
  
  Well... I just saw your message and make me think to recall 
  you about some interesting things than i observed after WIN95 arrived to our 
  world.
   
Must've been a different Win95 than I worked 
with... 
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  After WIN95 all routines from Borland Pascal, (Delphi in 
  this case), are only calls to automation of Windows. Bad thing to trust Billy 
  but, any other alternative for Frank ?, (Frank Borland).  I remeber the 
  wonderful times when Frank wrote (Himself) the code from very low level to 
  give us Borland Pascal, and makes me really proud of.  Things I learned 
  with Borland, Edwards and Duntemann, "The Art of Programming", ill never 
  forget.  The characteristics that makes me turn to Pascal 3.0 was, 
  precisely, the power to handle low level.  Now, we all must learn an 
  horrible thing like windows always changing and unstable close to CHAOS with 
  eating byte coding and lot of garbage allocated in mem for 
  nothing.
   
Frank who?  (Frank Borland is a mythological creation of 
the Borland advertising department.  The head of Borland at that time was 
Phillipe Kahn and Borland was marketing a Pascal compiler purchased from a 
European developer.(Turbo Pascal)  Borland's software development 
department has been continuously upgrading that compiler ever since.  As 
for handling low-level machine control, that is still somewhat possible with 
Win95, although it is much easier with WinNT.  And, wrapping WinAPI calls 
started with BPW and Delphi 1.0 under Win3X.  Actually, most of the VCL is 
still relatively free of WinAPI ties and can be easily ported.  However, 
whereever COM/DCOM/ActiveX enters the picture, the relevant VCL code is heavily 
WinXX dependent.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  What i think is Frank sold because he saw what im telling ya 
  write now.  So, inprise is a comercial company and, of course, not a 
  programmer that knows and love his work.  They only interested in sells 
  but, no way to talk about coding.  They INTERNET components are close to 
  unusable and when you go and look for information all ya fine is the same 
  components at a price close to $5,000.  Same components but they say it 
  works.  LOL.
   
Not so!  I think you'd find that most of the Delphi, C++ 
Builder and JBuilder development staff have a true love of programming.  
However, for Inprise/Borland to survive in the current Windows marketplace, the 
Windows language products MUST support all WinAPI features and multi-tier 
development.  And companies that buy such software have been conditioned 
over the years to think that a $5,000 development package as cheap for the 
price.  But then, most major corporations do NOT want programming staff 
members who use the same package for home/personal development.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  Man!..  I prophetize you  our world won't be the 
  same anymore....  Solutions?
   
  Why not to go back and make libraries just form the core of 
  BIOS, so that our routines works in any PC system?
   
And if we only handle BIOS functions, we will not have a GUI 
development environment.  Considering that the purpose is to get all 
potential users to be able to use our products without having to experience 
steep learning curves, a command-line interface is out of the question.  
Furthermore, if our product only works in basic text-mode, it'll look rather 
shabby and low-quality compared to WinNT or Gnome or KDE...  Look how many 
people who are computer illiterate have been able to make use of the Macs and 
iMacs...
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  Thats what im thinking to do, but... I think no profit in 
  there.
   
  If we only handle BIOS we can run in any PC.
   
And shooting ourselves in the head would solve the problem 
too, no?
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
  This is the first time i wrote to someone involved in 
  Lazarus Project and maybe because i thought you suffering same as me and many 
  other programmers.  I've beed coding from the 70's.  I never saw 
  something so stupid like WINDOWS.
   
 That's right where you belong, back 
in the 70's...  Of course, even with the full GUI/RAD support of Lazarus, 
you can still create command-line monsters, but I wouldn't expect you'd find 
many buyers.
 
Derek
<BLOCKQUOTE 
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
   
  THANKS!