4 ms·

According Embarcadero's website Delphi XE5 offers all the same plus Android support: http://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi http://www.embarcadero.com/prod

According Embarcadero's website Delphi XE5 offers all the same plus Android support: http://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi http://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi, http://www.embarcadero.com/products/cbuilder http://www.embarcadero.com/products/cbuilder. If they're targeting mobile developers I wonder why Embarcadero hasn't released a cheap "indie" version of Delphi yet. Last I checked it had much better compile times than C++Builder and the language itself could easily be marketed as a "friendlier C++". Meanwhile, outside of some larger companies where it's entrenched Delphi's popularity is waning. Edit: Now that I've looked at their online store through a US proxy I see that they have: https://store.embarcadero.com/542/catalog/product.s3703/language.en/currency.USD/ https://store.embarcadero.com/542/catalog/product.s3703/lang.... Not that the conditions are very good: >If you’re an individual you may use the Starter Edition to create apps for your own use and apps that you can sell until your revenues reach $1,000 per year. If you’re a small company or organization without revenue (or up to $1,000 per year in revenue), you can also use the Starter Edition. Once your company's total revenue reaches US $1,000, or your team expands to more than 5 developers, move up to the Professional edition with an unrestricted commercial license. The upgrade from Starter to Professional costs $899.00.

pjmlp 13y ago
I used to love Borland tools. Having learned Turbo Pascal before C, I never liked C, given the capabilities of Turbo Pascal. Type safety, blazing compile times, modules, system level programming, objects. Management killed Borland products thanks to their continuous change of brand, lack of investment on Kylix and Anders going to Microsoft. Most customers became reluctant to keep investing on their tooling.
- malkia 13y ago
  I loved it too. I moved to "C" because of one missing function in Pascal (and as I would say now - it's runtime library) - "movefile" - e.g. moving file from one directory to another. Also someone was spreading rumours that all games were written in C/C++ so we had to move to it :) When I learned assembly, and got my Ralph Brown's interrupt list (best thing ever back in the days) I went back to Pascal and made little assembly function for "movefile". I remmember friend of mine, who just moved to "C" put all his code in the .h file - and it was compiling all the time. Back then having .TPU file and not having to write additional header file was very advanced compared to C/C++ - and the compilation times were much faster.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    We were doing games in Turbo Pascal with a bit of inline assembly here and there. :)
- zura 13y ago
  My experience was quite the opposite - Borland C++ 3.1 and I never liked Pascal ;)
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Thankfully C++ is not just the C underpinnings. I got to use C (Turbo C 2.0) just during one year, and quickly jumped into C++ with Turbo C++ 3.0 in 1993. With C++ I could get a bit of Turbo Pascal features back. During my studies and career, I only used pure C when forced to so.
- networked 13y ago
  What you're saying rings true to me. I also learned Borland/Turbo/Object Pascal first (perhaps somewhat unusually, I went from Borland Pascal to C++ to Delphi when learning to program as a kid). Although I can't say I never liked C there are many things about Object Pascal I found superior that I miss in C, especially the built-in string type (for those who haven't used it, in C-land it can be compared to bstrings but it's handled completely transparently). If you wanted to use Object Pascal today and not have to rely on Embarcadero for the continued support of your tools you could use Free Pascal and Lazarus, which are both free software (GPL-licensed). Unfortunately, there's bit of a stigma against using any variant of Pascal these days (to which, no doubt, the many crappy CRUD apps written in Delphi and Borland's management of their product have both contributed), so it's not a good choice for new projects, especially free and open source. I wonder if Nimrod could be the comeback of type-safe compiled languages that don't target the JVM.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    > Unfortunately, there's bit of a stigma against using any variant of Pascal these days Ada seems to be only one really surviving, but it has a niche in only in areas where security and human lifes have priority over frames per second. > I wonder if Nimrod could be the comeback of type-safe compiled languages that don't target the JVM. I have been looking at it lately, but it seems to be a one man show, right?
  - lobster_johnson 13y ago
    Nimrod does indeed look very much inspired by Object Pascal (it even uses the classic Borland "T" and "P" prefixes for types and pointers, respectively, something I honestly never liked). Object Pascal was a fine language, but I don't see the point of using it today, not without removing a lot of the historical Pascal warts (begin/end, the weird semicolon rules, somewhat poor integration with C, etc.), and then you pretty much end up with Java.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Actualy C# I would say. ;)
- lobster_johnson 13y ago
  They really, really wanted to become an "enterprise" company. They acquired certain management people who saw development tools as a dead end, and decided all the money was in the enterprise. But they misjudged the market, and invested in products like Visibroker and Midas (and dead-end tech like CORBA), not really understanding what they ought to be building. (This wasn't the beginning of their troubles, though. They bungled a lot of decisions before then, especially with the purchase of dBase and Paradox, and the Windows version of Quattro Pro.) I stopped using Delphi in the late 1990s, but even then I could see how it was heading towards obsolescence. Not the GUI development model itself, which was brilliant and which I sorely miss for OS X GUI development today, but Object Pascal. Sure, Object Pascal is a good language, but it was very insular, not portable, often very Windows-specific, didn't integrate well with other things, and didn't evolve fast enough. I was able to work with C and C++ libraries, including Dialogic hardware APIs and Microsoft tech such as MAPI and TAPI, by writing a translator (htrans) that parsed header files into an AST and produced Object Pascal interface files for them. But it was very tiring. I had high hopes for C++Builder, but it was a major disappointment when it arrived. For one, it relied on a lot of proprietary C++ extensions. I was using Delphi/Object Pascal for a lot a systems development, non-GUI backend stuff. It seems a bit quixotic today, but it was fun, and I liked the language. It sort of filled a particular niche that Java would overtake a few years later.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Thanks for sharing your experience, very interesting. I left the ecosystem around Delphi 1.0, when I started to be more focused on UNIX at the university and only had p2c available. :( For me C++ has the way out as it provided many of the language capabilities that Object Pascal also had. Like many C++ early adopters, I also created my own set of classes (vector, string, lists) that insulated me from the unsafe C world as most as possible. Due to its ubiquity, C++ is my language to go for native coding, but I hope one day it gets replaced by Rust, D, Nimrod or any other safer systems programming language.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - 13y ago

pjmlp 13y ago

I used to love Borland tools. Having learned Turbo Pascal before C, I never liked C, given the capabilities of Turbo Pascal. Type safety, blazing compile times, modules, system level programming, objects. Management killed Borland products thanks to their continuous change of brand, lack of investment on Kylix and Anders going to Microsoft. Most customers became reluctant to keep investing on their tooling.

malkia 13y ago
I loved it too. I moved to "C" because of one missing function in Pascal (and as I would say now - it's runtime library) - "movefile" - e.g. moving file from one directory to another. Also someone was spreading rumours that all games were written in C/C++ so we had to move to it :) When I learned assembly, and got my Ralph Brown's interrupt list (best thing ever back in the days) I went back to Pascal and made little assembly function for "movefile". I remmember friend of mine, who just moved to "C" put all his code in the .h file - and it was compiling all the time. Back then having .TPU file and not having to write additional header file was very advanced compared to C/C++ - and the compilation times were much faster.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  We were doing games in Turbo Pascal with a bit of inline assembly here and there. :)
zura 13y ago
My experience was quite the opposite - Borland C++ 3.1 and I never liked Pascal ;)
- pjmlp 13y ago
  Thankfully C++ is not just the C underpinnings. I got to use C (Turbo C 2.0) just during one year, and quickly jumped into C++ with Turbo C++ 3.0 in 1993. With C++ I could get a bit of Turbo Pascal features back. During my studies and career, I only used pure C when forced to so.
networked 13y ago
What you're saying rings true to me. I also learned Borland/Turbo/Object Pascal first (perhaps somewhat unusually, I went from Borland Pascal to C++ to Delphi when learning to program as a kid). Although I can't say I never liked C there are many things about Object Pascal I found superior that I miss in C, especially the built-in string type (for those who haven't used it, in C-land it can be compared to bstrings but it's handled completely transparently). If you wanted to use Object Pascal today and not have to rely on Embarcadero for the continued support of your tools you could use Free Pascal and Lazarus, which are both free software (GPL-licensed). Unfortunately, there's bit of a stigma against using any variant of Pascal these days (to which, no doubt, the many crappy CRUD apps written in Delphi and Borland's management of their product have both contributed), so it's not a good choice for new projects, especially free and open source. I wonder if Nimrod could be the comeback of type-safe compiled languages that don't target the JVM.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  > Unfortunately, there's bit of a stigma against using any variant of Pascal these days Ada seems to be only one really surviving, but it has a niche in only in areas where security and human lifes have priority over frames per second. > I wonder if Nimrod could be the comeback of type-safe compiled languages that don't target the JVM. I have been looking at it lately, but it seems to be a one man show, right?
- lobster_johnson 13y ago
  Nimrod does indeed look very much inspired by Object Pascal (it even uses the classic Borland "T" and "P" prefixes for types and pointers, respectively, something I honestly never liked). Object Pascal was a fine language, but I don't see the point of using it today, not without removing a lot of the historical Pascal warts (begin/end, the weird semicolon rules, somewhat poor integration with C, etc.), and then you pretty much end up with Java.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Actualy C# I would say. ;)
lobster_johnson 13y ago
They really, really wanted to become an "enterprise" company. They acquired certain management people who saw development tools as a dead end, and decided all the money was in the enterprise. But they misjudged the market, and invested in products like Visibroker and Midas (and dead-end tech like CORBA), not really understanding what they ought to be building. (This wasn't the beginning of their troubles, though. They bungled a lot of decisions before then, especially with the purchase of dBase and Paradox, and the Windows version of Quattro Pro.) I stopped using Delphi in the late 1990s, but even then I could see how it was heading towards obsolescence. Not the GUI development model itself, which was brilliant and which I sorely miss for OS X GUI development today, but Object Pascal. Sure, Object Pascal is a good language, but it was very insular, not portable, often very Windows-specific, didn't integrate well with other things, and didn't evolve fast enough. I was able to work with C and C++ libraries, including Dialogic hardware APIs and Microsoft tech such as MAPI and TAPI, by writing a translator (htrans) that parsed header files into an AST and produced Object Pascal interface files for them. But it was very tiring. I had high hopes for C++Builder, but it was a major disappointment when it arrived. For one, it relied on a lot of proprietary C++ extensions. I was using Delphi/Object Pascal for a lot a systems development, non-GUI backend stuff. It seems a bit quixotic today, but it was fun, and I liked the language. It sort of filled a particular niche that Java would overtake a few years later.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  Thanks for sharing your experience, very interesting. I left the ecosystem around Delphi 1.0, when I started to be more focused on UNIX at the university and only had p2c available. :( For me C++ has the way out as it provided many of the language capabilities that Object Pascal also had. Like many C++ early adopters, I also created my own set of classes (vector, string, lists) that insulated me from the unsafe C world as most as possible. Due to its ubiquity, C++ is my language to go for native coding, but I hope one day it gets replaced by Rust, D, Nimrod or any other safer systems programming language.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - 13y ago