«

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:40:10 +0200, jacob navia <>
wrote:

> wrote:
>> Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...
>>
>
>Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
>(as I did) Delphi 2005.
>
>I guess you will not be surprised.

[grin] not at all.

By the way... that flaw I pointed out is not a joke. It's a timebomb
waiting to go off in a lot of Delphi software.

wrote:
> jacob navia <> wrote:
> > wrote:
>
>>> Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable
>>> language...
>>
>> Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
>> (as I did) Delphi 2005.
>>
>>I guess you will not be surprised.
>
> [grin] not at all.
>
> By the way... that flaw I pointed out is not a joke. It's a
> timebomb waiting to go off in a lot of Delphi software.

They don't even try to call it Pascal anymore. Borland has done a
great deal of harm to the Pascal language by ignoring the
standards. At least they have only ignored one standard, while
Microsoft ignores all.

--
Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 00:41:15 GMT, CBFalconer <> wrote:

>They don't even try to call it Pascal anymore. Borland has done a
>great deal of harm to the Pascal language by ignoring the
>standards. At least they have only ignored one standard, while
>Microsoft ignores all.

Ok, Charles, is it? For the sake of clarity...

I really don't care a rats behind about standards, portability or style.

Nobody will ever have to read my code, except me. It will never be ported
to anything but windows. And, if there is a new version of windows, it will
be me doing the rewrite.

I do however care what works and what doesn't.

You can't program in a faulty language.

In article <>, <> wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 21:40:10 +0200, jacob navia <>
>wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> Delphi provides a perfect example of why C remains a viable language...
>>>
>>
>>Yes, see in this same thread what happens when you buy
>>(as I did) Delphi 2005.
>>
>>I guess you will not be surprised.
>
>[grin] not at all.
>
>By the way... that flaw I pointed out is not a joke. It's a timebomb
>waiting to go off in a lot of Delphi software.

This is very interesting. I know very little about Delphi (having
programmed in it just a little, and long ago), but I know a lot about
a suite of applications that are written in Delphi. And you know what?
This "soft fail" that you describe is one of the key attributes of this
application suite. By "soft fail", I mean that the thing just quietly
doesn't work (i.e., with no error message) because some little detail
hasn't been attended to.

One of my cherished beliefs is that applications often take on the
attributes of the underlying language or toolkit in which they are
implemented. Things written in C, tend to be C-like. Things written in
Delphi tend to be Delphi-like.

Ok.. off topic but...

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 04:30:54 GMT, (Kenny
McCormack) wrote:
>This is very interesting. I know very little about Delphi (having
>programmed in it just a little, and long ago), but I know a lot about
>a suite of applications that are written in Delphi. And you know what?
>This "soft fail" that you describe is one of the key attributes of this
>application suite. By "soft fail", I mean that the thing just quietly
>doesn't work (i.e., with no error message) because some little detail
>hasn't been attended to.

Could well be... Check in any unit that uses Try/Except or Try/Finally make
sure SYSUTILS is in the "Uses" list... Same with any place an external
memory manager is used (and it's fairly common in Delphi) and be sure that
both Sysutils and Sharemem are included.


>One of my cherished beliefs is that applications often take on the
>attributes of the underlying language or toolkit in which they are
>implemented. Things written in C, tend to be C-like. Things written in
>Delphi tend to be Delphi-like.

Hmmmm... I do try to avoid that, but you may have a point.

I use Pelles C ... a nice implementation for Win32 and CE (although I only
use the Win32 stuff). I just finished a bunch of libraries of wayyyyy
off-standard code to make getting along with disk files easier. I wonder
how much my code is going to be influenced by using these libs.

wrote:
> CBFalconer <> wrote:
>
>> They don't even try to call it Pascal anymore. Borland has done a
>> great deal of harm to the Pascal language by ignoring the
>> standards. At least they have only ignored one standard, while
>> Microsoft ignores all.
>
> Ok, Charles, is it? For the sake of clarity...
>
> I really don't care a rats behind about standards, portability or
> style. Nobody will ever have to read my code, except me. It will
> never be ported to anything but windows. And, if there is a new
> version of windows, it will be me doing the rewrite.
>
> I do however care what works and what doesn't.
>
> You can't program in a faulty language.

You don't know what you are missing. You can get the semantics,
but not the full language, of Pascal with Turbo/Borland with my
TXTFILES unit. I believe it works with all of them, and will give
you much better interactive operation. Available at:

<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net/download/txtfiles.zip>

--
Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)

On Sat, 02 Apr 2005 05:55:38 GMT, CBFalconer <> wrote:

>You don't know what you are missing.

Yes I do... that's why I've switched to C.

Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
>
> Love,
>
> Ekoj Looflirpa

Good one!

I love Ekoj => jokE(s) too...

Bill C.

I agree with some of your points (bloated exe size, slow/buggy ide),
but Delphi overall isn't so bad for making win32 client applications.
At least versions 5 and 7, I can't say I've tried the 2005 version.
First of all the VCL is a decent framework, second the code produced by
the compiler gives fast performance, often times comparable to c. And
much faster than the open source object pascal compilers.
(http://dada.perl.it/shootout/)

As for the drag and drop components, I can't say I use them that often,
but they do come in handy at times. For the most part I use Delphi as
an object pascal compiler + win32 framework, and it is good for this
purpose.

jacob navia wrote:
> Ekoj LoofLirpa wrote:
> > C is such a silly, outdated language. It is a relic of a cumbersome
> > 1970s operating system called Unix. It has no relevance in today's
> > world. I can understand that some programmers may feel a nostalgic
> > attachment to the days of teletype console-oriented I/O, but this
is
> > the 21st century, and we need to break the shackles of the past.
> >
> > I mean, why would anyone continue to use a language that makes it
so
> > easy to have uninitialized pointers, buffer overruns, and memory
leaks?
> > That is so DUMB. We as programmers need to abandon obsolete
languages
> > like Fortran and Cobol and C and use a modern, object-oriented
langage.
> > And no, I don't mean that bloated mutant C dialect called C++. I
mean a
> > real language like Delphi or Perl or Jython or C#. Yes, I know that
C#
> > is a Mi¢ro$oft invention, but even that one is better than C --
blech!
> >
> >
> > Love,
> >
> > Ekoj Looflirpa
> >
>
> Yes. I have followed your advice IMMEDIATELY. You are 100% RIGHT.
>
> I bought Delphi (just a bit over US$ 1000). That is a professional
> object oriented language, that comes with a .NET version at the
latest
> fad level.
>
> After installing it, and several days to clear license issues, I got
> started with it.
>
> I clicked in the icon of the compiler, (excuse me, IDE), I saw a
popup
> window after 10 seconds, and then...
>
> Well then I learned how good is to have some time to REFLECT what I
am
> doing, for a change. It took Delphi 2005 1 minute and half to start
and
> open a small project.
>
> Of course this is due to my old machine, a slow AMD 64 bit with just
> a GIG of RAM. I should buy a new one of course:
>
> "We as programmers need to abandon obsolete languages" you say. I
would
> say the same of old fashioned 64 bit hardware. Let's buy the 256 bit
AMD
> 2009.
>
> But back to Delphi. I started typing code but.... Ahhh the editor
> couldn't keep with my typing. I know I type fast, and I like this
> feature:
>
> You type, and then you wait, without seeing what you typed, 4-6
seconds
> until Delphi catches up. I was used to this from MSDOS, when some
> editors swapped and swapped to fit all my document in a 20K buffer.
>
> Welcome to the future! It looks increasingly like the past, but never
> mind.
>
> According to most people, the speed of .NET is approx 1 tenth of what
> raw machine code provides. And C is raw machine code. It is true, a
> string type is sorely needed in C but... a 10 times performance
> loss?????
>
> Why can't Delphi catch up with the typing???
>
> Because this is progress man. The latest fad, the latest development
in
> language research.
>
> Make the language as inefficient as possible so that the customer
> buys new hardware to keep up with the bloat.
>
> I compiled a hellowin demo program that in lcc-win32 makes 4K with
the
> latest version of Visual Studio 64 bits.
>
> It produced a 532K (yes, half a megabyte) program. And the program
would
> not start, because the embedded manifest was not correctly
generated...
>
> Progress, progress.
>
> Bloat is to be avoided, the people in this group agree. We do not
agree
> in anything else but at least that, we agree: bloat is to be avoided,
> program efficiency is important.
>
> That's why we stick to C you see?
>
> Thanks for your advise anyway.
>
> jacob

On 3 Apr 2005 14:21:42 -0700, wrote:

>As for the drag and drop components, I can't say I use them that often,
>but they do come in handy at times. For the most part I use Delphi as
>an object pascal compiler + win32 framework, and it is good for this
>purpose.

Off topic, i know...

However, if you are using only the Object Pascal parts of Delphi, please
take note of my warning about keyword shutdown in another message. It's no
joke... and it can seriously sabotage your programs as they will continue
running with whole portions simply bypassed...