Opinions on KYLIX 3 (Delphi 4 Linux)

Discussion in 'Python' started by windozbloz, Jul 18, 2005.

  1. windozbloz

    windozbloz Guest

    Bye Bye Billy Bob...

    I'm back with one more question, then I'll chill. I have scoured the news
    and net for info about Borlands KYLIX 3 and have found little technical
    info about it. Their screen shots are very impressive, similar to Visual
    Basic. I have sent several emails to Borlands Sales and Pre-Sales
    departments. Pre-Sales bounces and Sales won't answer. I'm sitting here
    with money in hand ready to buy but not from a company that won't give me
    the time of day.

    Does anyone of you have experiance with KYLIX 3 and do you think I should
    consider buying it? Thank You, I'll go oil my keyboard now.

    Doug

    --
    LINUX protects me from the GATES of hell !!!
    windozbloz, Jul 18, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. windozbloz

    Jeff Epler Guest

    I honestly don't know why anyone would spend money for a development
    environment, no matter how fancy. I don't know why anyone would develop
    software in a language that doesn't have at least one open
    implementation.

    It's a great way to get screwed when Borland goes under or decides
    they only want to sell a new, incompatible product. What do you do with
    your existing product when that happens? Re-train on a new platform,
    and re-write from scratch?

    Just say no to proprietary software.

    Jeff

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFC29uaJd01MZaTXX0RAnjcAJ4/2ZG2kfV2oVjhLPhBr06t7kVr+QCdEPYU
    nbTIrMSqZfAkB/xQ1uUg+eA=
    =Nisl
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Jeff Epler, Jul 18, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. windozbloz

    windozbloz Guest

    Jeff Epler wrote:

    > I honestly don't know why anyone would spend money for a development
    > environment, no matter how fancy. I don't knowdefinitelye would develop
    > software in a language that doesn't have at least one open
    > implementation.
    >
    > It's a great way to get screwed when Borland goes under or decides
    > they only want to sell a new, incompatible product. What do you do with
    > your existing product when that happens? Re-train on a new platform,
    > and re-write from scratch?
    >
    > Just say no to proprietary software.
    >
    > Jeff


    Thanks Jeff,
    Point taken! I had given that considerable thought. Your words 'retrain on
    a new platform' struck a loud cord with me, thank you, I will definitely
    reconsider. I don't ever want to find myself locked behind 'the GATES of
    hell' again!

    Doug
    --
    LINUX protects me from the GATES of hell !!!
    windozbloz, Jul 18, 2005
    #3
  4. "windozbloz" <> wrote in message
    news:gJQCe.8759$2h1.1968@trnddc05...
    > Bye Bye Billy Bob...
    >
    > I'm back with one more question, then I'll chill. I have scoured the news
    > and net for info about Borlands KYLIX 3 and have found little technical
    > info about it. Their screen shots are very impressive, similar to Visual
    > Basic. I have sent several emails to Borlands Sales and Pre-Sales
    > departments. Pre-Sales bounces and Sales won't answer. I'm sitting here
    > with money in hand ready to buy but not from a company that won't give me
    > the time of day.
    >
    > Does anyone of you have experiance with KYLIX 3 and do you think I should
    > consider buying it? Thank You, I'll go oil my keyboard now.


    Good question! Wither Borland?

    My impression (second hand - based on no direct experience with Kylix!) is
    that Borlands wonderful Delphi product ported to Linux has been a
    dissapointment.

    * * * Someone with real experience on Kylix - please jump in here!

    Calling Delphi "similar to Visual Basic" is hurtful because I believe that
    VB is the product of looting and pillaging the talent that came out of
    Borland. I'm guessing that Microsoft has successfully targeted this
    perceived competitor with destruction.

    If Kylix were of the quality of Delphi, it would be a killer Linux app.
    Thomas Bartkus
    Thomas Bartkus, Jul 18, 2005
    #4
  5. > Jeff Epler wrote:
    >
    > > I honestly don't know why anyone would spend money for a development
    > > environment, no matter how fancy. I don't knowdefinitelye would develop
    > > software in a language that doesn't have at least one open
    > > implementation.


    It's called (ROI) Return On Investment. If you can get that to a positive
    number, then spending money on the tool is a no brainer. Given that one
    caveat, a sane person will just do it!

    If I can create something that earns $10,000 or more in profit, then the
    difference between a tool that costs $500 and one that is free amounts to
    small beer. IOW - it hardly matters! The only decision one needs be
    concerned with is which tool is most effective.

    > > It's a great way to get screwed when Borland goes under or decides
    > > they only want to sell a new, incompatible product. What do you do with
    > > your existing product when that happens?


    Your existing products are not affected. The compiler tools you have will
    work just as well as the day you bought it. Your ownership of the product
    does not get revoked just because Borland dissapears.

    > > Re-train on a new platform,
    > > and re-write from scratch?


    What do you do when an open source project you were using gets abandoned?
    Hard to see much difference here.
    Thomas Bartkus
    Thomas Bartkus, Jul 18, 2005
    #5
  6. Hi Doug

    Not only was Kylix a letdown, there is talk also of it being
    discontinued. To be fair though, it is easy to see the difficulty for
    Borland to deploy a Linux IDE of the same quality as Delphi when so much
    in different Linux distributions is variable, the widget set being a prime
    example: CLX just never caught on, amongst the myriad of more mature and
    more open toolsets.

    I am assuming that you have experience with pascal, or ObjectPascal as the
    Delphi manuals call it (if not, why Kylix?). If so, may I suggest you
    look into
    a) fpc (Free Pascal Compiler, http://www.freepascal.org)
    b) Lazarus (An fpc IDE, aims to be an open-source Delphi clone, supports
    multiple widget sets [Win32 native on Windows!], can't remember the URL)

    Though python is probably my favourite language for general purpose
    hacking, there is a lot to be said for a native compiled language
    (sometimes speed _is_ an issue), and in particular there is a lot to be
    said for fpc:
    - Something like 99% Turbo Pascal compliant
    - Very nearly Delphi compliant (object-pascal)
    - (IMHO) Much cleaner language than C, still natively compiled
    - Supports operator overloading & inlining
    - Can be used to develop python extensions
    - Supports nearly effortless cross-compiling

    There are some problems with Lazarus at the moment, here is the biggie:
    It creates binaries of around 5MB for a minimal app, and this is because,
    at the moment it seems like it compiles the component library into the
    executable. This is somewhat of a problem for me but I expect this will
    change within a release or two.

    Lazarus is _very_ much like Delphi, and works on Windows, Linux, and
    possibly several other platforms.

    cya
    Caleb


    > and net for info about Borlands KYLIX 3 and have found little technical
    > info about it. Their screen shots are very impressive, similar to Visual
    > Basic. I have sent several emails to Borlands Sales and Pre-Sales
    > departments. Pre-Sales bounces and Sales won't answer. I'm sitting here
    > with money in hand ready to buy but not from a company that won't give me
    > the time of day.
    >
    > Does anyone of you have experiance with KYLIX 3 and do you think I should
    > consider buying it? Thank You, I'll go oil my keyboard now.
    >
    > Doug
    >
    Caleb Hattingh, Jul 18, 2005
    #6
  7. I'd suggest you take another path:
    Since we're in a python mailing list, I assume you like python, so
    instead of Kylix (or Object Pascal), you could try Boo
    (boo.codehaus.org) .
    Boo is not python, but it is very similar.
    It could be described as a statically typed version of python for the
    ..NET framework (it also works in Linux with Mono and in Mac Osx).
    It has borrowed from python as much syntax as possible and uses a handy
    type inference system, which allows you to code without having to
    declare types everywhere, making it very similar to a dynamic language
    while being static.
    As I said, "it is not python" (Peter Hansen, please don't jump to my
    jugular...), but it's been inspired and takes a lot from it. In words
    of Guido Van Rossum, it is 95% python.
    You get all the niceties you got used to enjoy in python, such as list
    comprehensions, generator expressions, slicing, dictionaries, lists,
    etc, etc.. and you get all the speed and performance of a static
    language for free.
    As for IDEs, you can use SharpDevelop in Windows (free) or MonoDevelop
    in Linux (free).

    And if you are patient, soon you'll be able o use regular python in
    ..NET and Mono, and I'm sure that there will be support for SharpDevelop
    and MonoDevelop for it as well.
    At the present time, python for .NET (code named Ironpython) is still
    at pre-alpha state (version 0.7.6).
    Luis M. Gonzalez, Jul 18, 2005
    #7
  8. windozbloz

    Mike Meyer Guest

    "Thomas Bartkus" <> writes:
    >> > Re-train on a new platform,
    >> > and re-write from scratch?

    >
    > What do you do when an open source project you were using gets abandoned?


    cvs import -m "sources for orphaned project" <myprojectname> <productname> <initial>

    > Hard to see much difference here.


    Doing support for object-only distributions is *much* harder than
    doing it for source distributions.

    I have a habit of picking products based on technical superiority, not
    popularity. As a result, I have a nice collection of orphans. That's
    because technical quality has little or nothing to do with
    profitability.

    On the other hand, since starting to use open source projects, I've
    never had one I depend on fail. I've had some I contributed to fail,
    but that's a different thing.

    I suspect that technical quality in open source projects contributes
    to their attracting people to support them. This makes them ever so
    much more attractive than proprietary solutions, where technical
    quality seems to be irrelevant to longevity.

    <mike
    --
    Mike Meyer <> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
    Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
    Mike Meyer, Jul 19, 2005
    #8
  9. On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:56:24 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:

    > "Thomas Bartkus" <> writes:
    >>> > Re-train on a new platform,
    >>> > and re-write from scratch?

    >>
    >> What do you do when an open source project you were using gets
    >> abandoned?

    >
    > cvs import -m "sources for orphaned project" <myprojectname>
    > <productname> <initial>
    >
    >> Hard to see much difference here.

    >
    > Doing support for object-only distributions is *much* harder than doing
    > it for source distributions.
    >
    > I have a habit of picking products based on technical superiority, not
    > popularity. As a result, I have a nice collection of orphans. That's
    > because technical quality has little or nothing to do with
    > profitability.
    >
    > On the other hand, since starting to use open source projects, I've
    > never had one I depend on fail. I've had some I contributed to fail, but
    > that's a different thing.


    I didn't suggest that orphaned open source projects were a problem. I
    simply point out that they are no more, nor less, of a problem than an
    orphaned (and paid for!) commercial product.

    > I suspect that technical quality in open source projects contributes to
    > their attracting people to support them.


    Perhaps. And there is no way to support a commercial product other than
    by becoming an employee.

    > This makes them ever so
    > much more attractive than proprietary solutions, where technical quality
    > seems to be irrelevant to longevity.


    This last statement sounds too much like a canard. It is difficult to deny
    that commercial products either put some significant value on the table or
    go bust. Although people can be, and sometimes are, swindled few can
    afford to simply throw their money away. IOW - technical quality is
    *never* irrelivant to longevity. And one must also consider that
    technical merit, by itself, is rarely sufficient. The open source world
    is awash with much that is high on technical merit but commercially
    unviable. There is much out there that one would gladly pay good $ for if
    only for lack of that last (but most difficult!) 5% effort that would
    bring many of these projects to fruition.

    Which brings me back to the point that the difference between free and
    $500 (or $1000!) amounts to virtually *nothing* when evaluating a tool.

    You use what is most effective to get the job done.
    Thomas Bartkus
    Thomas Bartkus, Jul 19, 2005
    #9
  10. Luis M. Gonzalez wrote:
    > As I said, "it is not python" (Peter Hansen, please don't jump to my
    > jugular...)


    Hey Pete, I was joking on that one!
    Here's the missing smiley ;-)
    Luis M. Gonzalez, Jul 19, 2005
    #10
  11. windozbloz

    Mike Meyer Guest

    Thomas Bartkus <> writes:

    > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 19:56:24 -0400, Mike Meyer wrote:
    >
    >> "Thomas Bartkus" <> writes:
    >>>> > Re-train on a new platform,
    >>>> > and re-write from scratch?
    >>>
    >>> What do you do when an open source project you were using gets
    >>> abandoned?

    >>
    >> cvs import -m "sources for orphaned project" <myprojectname>
    >> <productname> <initial>
    >>
    >>> Hard to see much difference here.

    >>
    >> Doing support for object-only distributions is *much* harder than doing
    >> it for source distributions.
    >>
    >> I have a habit of picking products based on technical superiority, not
    >> popularity. As a result, I have a nice collection of orphans. That's
    >> because technical quality has little or nothing to do with
    >> profitability.
    >>
    >> On the other hand, since starting to use open source projects, I've
    >> never had one I depend on fail. I've had some I contributed to fail, but
    >> that's a different thing.

    >
    > I didn't suggest that orphaned open source projects were a problem. I
    > simply point out that they are no more, nor less, of a problem than an
    > orphaned (and paid for!) commercial product.


    You missed my answer to this. Ok, it was oblique, so it's probably my
    fault. With an orphaned open source project, you always have the
    option of taking on the support role yourself - or paying someone else
    to do so. That's not generally possible with closed source products.

    >> I suspect that technical quality in open source projects contributes to
    >> their attracting people to support them.

    > Perhaps. And there is no way to support a commercial product other than
    > by becoming an employee.


    Not true. Not all commercial products are closed source - though that
    tends to be the norm these days. And you can contribute code to closed
    source products. For instance, I did the original Python wrappers for
    Perforce's binary library. That's certainly supporting the product.

    >> This makes them ever so
    >> much more attractive than proprietary solutions, where technical quality
    >> seems to be irrelevant to longevity.

    > This last statement sounds too much like a canard. It is difficult to deny
    > that commercial products either put some significant value on the table or
    > go bust. Although people can be, and sometimes are, swindled few can
    > afford to simply throw their money away. IOW - technical quality is
    > *never* irrelivant to longevity. And one must also consider that
    > technical merit, by itself, is rarely sufficient. The open source world
    > is awash with much that is high on technical merit but commercially
    > unviable. There is much out there that one would gladly pay good $ for if
    > only for lack of that last (but most difficult!) 5% effort that would
    > bring many of these projects to fruition.


    I almost certainly overstated the case - but I've been burned a lot by
    choosing technical quality over profitability or popularity. The
    reality seems to be that once you reach the level of "good enough",
    technical quality stops mattering, and marketing forces come into
    play. My essay on the subject at <URL:
    http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/good-enough.html > has more information.

    > Which brings me back to the point that the difference between free and
    > $500 (or $1000!) amounts to virtually *nothing* when evaluating a tool.


    Depends on what you're evaluating it for. In the context of the
    discussion - choosing tools for commercial software development - it's
    almost certainly true. If it's not, you're not charging enough for
    your time. But that's hardly the only time that one evaluates tools.

    <mike
    --
    Mike Meyer <> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
    Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
    Mike Meyer, Jul 20, 2005
    #11
  12. "Thomas Bartkus" <> writes:

    >
    > Good question! Wither Borland?
    >
    > My impression (second hand - based on no direct experience with
    > Kylix!) is that Borlands wonderful Delphi product ported to Linux
    > has been a dissapointment.
    >
    > * * * Someone with real experience on Kylix - please jump in here!


    It has been two or three years since I gave Kylix a try, so my memory
    is a bit vague on the specifics. I was working in a Delphi shop and
    wanted to port (at least some of) our apps to Linux using Kylix (I
    think it was version 3). I think I ported one and a half apps and more
    or less gave up or put it on the back burner. My impression was that
    Kylix still wasn't ready for serious development work.

    The type of application I was working on (porting) involved
    client/server database access, and TCP communications with other
    applications. It never really worked correctly (I forget what the
    problems were just now), but probably could have been made to work
    correctly. The point was, however, that porting (a relatively simple)
    Delphi app to Kylix shouldn't have been that hard.

    >
    > Calling Delphi "similar to Visual Basic" is hurtful because I
    > believe that VB is the product of looting and pillaging the talent
    > that came out of Borland. I'm guessing that Microsoft has
    > successfully targeted this perceived competitor with destruction.
    >
    > If Kylix were of the quality of Delphi, it would be a killer Linux app.


    Possibly. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the whole GUI building
    approach of Delphi/Kylix (or other similar tools) is much chop. It
    encourages one, for instance, to just place elements on the screen in
    fixed positions that make no allowance for differing fonts, screen
    resolutions, etc. Java (my experience is with JBuilder) is much better
    in this regard, although the different paradigm takes some getting
    used to. However, all GUI builders with which I'm familiar (not many)
    seem to have very real limitations when it comes to designing very
    complex interfaces. Kenny Tilton's Cells project (ask on
    comp.lang.lisp) has set me to thinking along these lines. In the past,
    I never gave it much consideration.

    Programmers who like Pascal should look at Ada as a better
    alternative. If I wanted to program in a Pascal-like language on
    Linux, Ada (the GNU Gnat compiler, integrated with GCC) is the one
    that I would use. Ada, you could say, is like Pascal on
    steroids. Caveat: I've read Ada books, but haven't programmed in it,
    and my main concern is that its ultra strong typing might get in my
    way -- or alternatively, force greater rigour, as the Ada folks might
    say ;-).

    These days, for hacking about, I prefer Common Lisp. It's faster
    (sometimes approaching the speed of compiled C/Pascal) and much more
    powerful than Python, but doesn't have the same library support
    (smaller community), and application bundling and delivery *can* be a
    potential problem, depending on various factors (such as whether you
    want to license a commercial Common Lisp). Also, similar to Python,
    there is no standard GUI framework defined for Common Lisp, so
    choosing from the GUI frameworks available can be a challenge (I've
    only programmed a simple GUI app using the great little Ltk library by
    Peter Herth, which talks to Tk over a socket).

    My advice would be to steer clear of Kylix and choose one of the other
    environments suggested to you. If you really like Pascal, fpc may be a
    possibility as someone mentioned. I haven't looked into it any time in
    the last couple of years, though, so I don't know its status. I really
    would suggest a serious look at Ada, though, if you want to develop
    fast, industrial strength applications, or take advantage of built-in
    concurrency support and lots of other goodies.

    David



    --

    David Trudgett
    http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/

    I was in the pub last night, and a guy asked me for a light for his
    cigarette. I suddenly realised that there was a demand here and money
    to be made, and so I agreed to light his cigarette for 10 pence, but I
    didn't actually give him a light, I sold him a licence to burn his
    cigarette. My fire-licence restricted him from giving the light to
    anybody else, after all, that fire was my property. He was drunk, and
    dismissed me as a loony, but accepted my fire (and by implication the
    licence which governed its use) anyway. Of course in a matter of
    minutes I noticed a friend of his asking him for a light and to my
    outrage he gave his cigarette to his friend and pirated my fire! I was
    furious, I started to make my way over to that side of the bar but to
    my added horror his friend then started to light other people's
    cigarettes left, right, and centre! Before long that whole side of the
    bar was enjoying MY fire without paying me anything. Enraged I went
    from person to person grabbing their cigarettes from their hands,
    throwing them to the ground, and stamping on them.

    Strangely the door staff exhibited no respect for my property rights
    as they threw me out the door.

    -- Ian Clarke
    David Trudgett, Jul 20, 2005
    #12
  13. On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:37:48 +1000, David Trudgett wrote:

    <snip>
    > My advice would be to steer clear of Kylix and choose one of the other
    > environments suggested to you. If you really like Pascal, fpc may be a
    > possibility as someone mentioned. ...

    <snip>

    Well - I really like Python!

    But - climbing back on the soapbox - far more important than any
    linguistic quibble is a robust GUI interface that might *unburden* any
    language from the tedium of creating a powerful and effective user
    interface.

    I would go so far as to say that, while this is the only thing an atrocity
    like VB has going for it, it *trumps* most everything. This was the great
    hope of the Delphi<->Kylix thing. The Windows implemntation (Delphi)
    was/is a magnificent productivity tool. And if Kylix has failed then we
    are still scratching about with TKinter, Glade, wxGlade, EasyGUI, or
    {whatever} just to to bring up the rear on Linux.

    Python is fun, but how do we get it to desktop primetime ?
    Thomas Bartkus
    Thomas Bartkus, Jul 22, 2005
    #13
  14. windozbloz

    Peter Maas Guest

    Jeff Epler schrieb:
    > I honestly don't know why anyone would spend money for a development
    > environment, no matter how fancy. I don't know why anyone would develop
    > software in a language that doesn't have at least one open
    > implementation.


    FreePascal is OSS. I recently developed a mixed Delphi/FreePascal
    application. FreePascal doesn't have a GUI Builder like Delphi but
    is very complete and mature.

    > It's a great way to get screwed when Borland goes under or decides
    > they only want to sell a new, incompatible product. What do you do with
    > your existing product when that happens? Re-train on a new platform,
    > and re-write from scratch?


    Port it to FreePascal :)

    --
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Maas, M+R Infosysteme, D-52070 Aachen, Tel +49-241-93878-0
    E-mail 'cGV0ZXIubWFhc0BtcGx1c3IuZGU=\n'.decode('base64')
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Peter Maas, Jul 25, 2005
    #14
  15. >
    > Does anyone of you have experiance with KYLIX 3 and do you think I should
    > consider buying it? Thank You, I'll go oil my keyboard now.


    http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/

    Sorry if the above came out somewhere else in the thread, did not read all.

    Vlad
    Vladimir Konrad, Jul 25, 2005
    #15
  16. "windozbloz" <> wrote in message
    news:gJQCe.8759$2h1.1968@trnddc05...
    > Bye Bye Billy Bob...
    >
    > I'm back with one more question, then I'll chill. I have scoured the news
    > and net for info about Borlands KYLIX 3 and have found little technical
    > info about it. Their screen shots are very impressive, similar to Visual
    > Basic. I have sent several emails to Borlands Sales and Pre-Sales
    > departments. Pre-Sales bounces and Sales won't answer. I'm sitting here
    > with money in hand ready to buy but not from a company that won't give me
    > the time of day.
    >
    > Does anyone of you have experiance with KYLIX 3 and do you think I should
    > consider buying it? Thank You, I'll go oil my keyboard now.
    >
    > Doug
    >
    > --
    > LINUX protects me from the GATES of hell !!!


    KYLIX is currently not being developed by Borland. I'm not even sure
    they're still supporting it OR selling it. There is a guy that is currently
    providing patches for the product(third party), but KYLIX 3 is the last
    version so far.

    I suspect that Borland is going to eventually drop KYLIX in favor of .NET
    and it's c# product. There are strong indications that the MONO project
    will run vb.net, c#.net, etc, etc, etc, so there's no need for a delphi
    (pascal) compiler under Linux if true.

    HTH
    Ruben
    Ruben Baumann, Aug 5, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. F. S

    Delphi and Dotnet

    F. S, Oct 27, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,014
    Larry Maturo
    Nov 4, 2005
  2. Atz
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    466
    Christopher Benson-Manica
    Apr 28, 2004
  3. Jens Spaniel
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    423
    Victor Bazarov
    Jan 13, 2005
  4. John Tiedeman

    Delphi/Kylix and Python

    John Tiedeman, Dec 2, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    351
    Tim Roberts
    Dec 5, 2004
  5. Greg Lorriman
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    118
    Ryan Eibling
    Feb 19, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page