Why is there no Delphi content?
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Senkwe Chanda wrote: So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? The short answer is that this is a Microsoft Technology site. Take a look around... --Colin Mackay--
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? The short answer is that this is a Microsoft Technology site. Take a look around... --Colin Mackay--
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: The short answer is that this is a Microsoft Technology site. Take a look around... Well, why do we have Java Programming, PERL and OpenGL sections? Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: The short answer is that this is a Microsoft Technology site. Take a look around... Well, why do we have Java Programming, PERL and OpenGL sections? Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
OpenGL has been built into windows since the early versions of Windows NT. It may not have been built by Microsoft initially but it is nevertheless a part of the operating system now. I can't answer about PERL and Java because I never even realised they were there - which just shows how insignificant they are to this site. Both sections are also quite small compared with others. In total the Java Programming and PERL sections together make up 0.86% of all articles. (48 articles out of a current total of 5462 articles) --Colin Mackay--
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
I haven't used Delphi since before it was Delphi (Turbo Pascal 6.0, for the record). The compiler was very fast...and in fact when I first encountered Visual C++ I remember being astonished at how slow it was at compiling. Maybe that's down to the C++ language's heavy dependence on header files. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: The short answer is that this is a Microsoft Technology site. Take a look around... Well, why do we have Java Programming, PERL and OpenGL sections? Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Java because you can do it on Windows (even I have). PERL also, it is often used by web-developers even on IIS platforms (not that I ever have). OpenGL as Colin mentions. Delphi you also do on Windows of course, there is even a .NET version I believe. But I would say it is just not as used by us Microsofties. regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Brian Welsch wrote: "blah blah blah, maybe a potato?" while translating my Afrikaans. Crikey! ain't life grand? Einstein says...
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Ok, you asked for it... :) Senkwe Chanda wrote: Small executables Very questionable. BTW, what is more important is the working set size, as this is what the user perceives as the memory use. Small executables can be achieved in any language with UPX or similar tools. Senkwe Chanda wrote: damn near C++ execution speeds Damn near C, not C++ execution speeds. To see what I mean, code this both in C++ and Delphi and take a look at the ASM code generated:
#include "stdafx.h"
template<int N>
class Factorial {
public:
enum { value = N * Factorial<N-1>::value };
};template<>
class Factorial<1> {
public:
enum { value = 1 };
};int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::cout << Factorial<5>::value;
return 0;
}Senkwe Chanda wrote: fuss free deployment Three letters: BDE Senkwe Chanda wrote: pure OO What does 'pure OO' mean? Senkwe Chanda wrote: The IDE's were great This is a matter of taste. IMHO, too many floating small windows made a too confuse IDE. A Coreldraw-like approach to an IDE. There are people who loves it. I hate it. Nothing beats MDI for coding. I loved Borland tools at DOS time. I used Turbo Pascal from 3 to 6, and I loved it. Turbo Vision was great. Turbo C 2.0 was 'da tool' at its time, Turbo C++ was slow at compiling, but great, too. But, IMHO, Borland didn't achieve the same quality levels on Windows. It's a pity. :(( Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -- Bruce Schneier By the way, dog_spawn isn't a nickname - it is my name with an underscore instead of a space. -- dog_spawn
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Ok, you asked for it... :) Senkwe Chanda wrote: Small executables Very questionable. BTW, what is more important is the working set size, as this is what the user perceives as the memory use. Small executables can be achieved in any language with UPX or similar tools. Senkwe Chanda wrote: damn near C++ execution speeds Damn near C, not C++ execution speeds. To see what I mean, code this both in C++ and Delphi and take a look at the ASM code generated:
#include "stdafx.h"
template<int N>
class Factorial {
public:
enum { value = N * Factorial<N-1>::value };
};template<>
class Factorial<1> {
public:
enum { value = 1 };
};int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::cout << Factorial<5>::value;
return 0;
}Senkwe Chanda wrote: fuss free deployment Three letters: BDE Senkwe Chanda wrote: pure OO What does 'pure OO' mean? Senkwe Chanda wrote: The IDE's were great This is a matter of taste. IMHO, too many floating small windows made a too confuse IDE. A Coreldraw-like approach to an IDE. There are people who loves it. I hate it. Nothing beats MDI for coding. I loved Borland tools at DOS time. I used Turbo Pascal from 3 to 6, and I loved it. Turbo Vision was great. Turbo C 2.0 was 'da tool' at its time, Turbo C++ was slow at compiling, but great, too. But, IMHO, Borland didn't achieve the same quality levels on Windows. It's a pity. :(( Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -- Bruce Schneier By the way, dog_spawn isn't a nickname - it is my name with an underscore instead of a space. -- dog_spawn
-
I haven't used Delphi since before it was Delphi (Turbo Pascal 6.0, for the record). The compiler was very fast...and in fact when I first encountered Visual C++ I remember being astonished at how slow it was at compiling. Maybe that's down to the C++ language's heavy dependence on header files. Anna :rose: Homepage | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
Anna-Jayne Metcalfe wrote: Maybe that's down to the C++ language's heavy dependence on header files. Besides that, semantic analysis is a booger I'm afraid. When I compile stuff for Unix, I always modify the makefiles to remove flags like "-Wall" (All Warnings). It really boosts compile time for larger projects. -- I am perpetual, I keep the country clean.
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
yup.. I worked it for one year... Well its editor is cool buts its handling/writing of windows pgm needs more power or flexibilty.. btw i worked with delphi 6 cheers, Super ------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Ok, you asked for it... :) Senkwe Chanda wrote: Small executables Very questionable. BTW, what is more important is the working set size, as this is what the user perceives as the memory use. Small executables can be achieved in any language with UPX or similar tools. Senkwe Chanda wrote: damn near C++ execution speeds Damn near C, not C++ execution speeds. To see what I mean, code this both in C++ and Delphi and take a look at the ASM code generated:
#include "stdafx.h"
template<int N>
class Factorial {
public:
enum { value = N * Factorial<N-1>::value };
};template<>
class Factorial<1> {
public:
enum { value = 1 };
};int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::cout << Factorial<5>::value;
return 0;
}Senkwe Chanda wrote: fuss free deployment Three letters: BDE Senkwe Chanda wrote: pure OO What does 'pure OO' mean? Senkwe Chanda wrote: The IDE's were great This is a matter of taste. IMHO, too many floating small windows made a too confuse IDE. A Coreldraw-like approach to an IDE. There are people who loves it. I hate it. Nothing beats MDI for coding. I loved Borland tools at DOS time. I used Turbo Pascal from 3 to 6, and I loved it. Turbo Vision was great. Turbo C 2.0 was 'da tool' at its time, Turbo C++ was slow at compiling, but great, too. But, IMHO, Borland didn't achieve the same quality levels on Windows. It's a pity. :(( Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -- Bruce Schneier By the way, dog_spawn isn't a nickname - it is my name with an underscore instead of a space. -- dog_spawn
Hey, you're cheating with that template voodoo! :-D By the way, here's a bugfix:
template<unsigned int N> // Made it unsigned for robustness
struct Factorial {
enum { value = N * Factorial<N-1>::value };
};template<>
struct Factorial<0> { // fac(0) = 1 (0 is the factorial base case)
enum { value = 1 };
};Daniel Turini wrote: What does 'pure OO' mean? Something big and hard to wield when the problem at hand doesn't fit the OO point of view. -- I am perpetual, I keep the country clean.
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Ok, you asked for it... :) Senkwe Chanda wrote: Small executables Very questionable. BTW, what is more important is the working set size, as this is what the user perceives as the memory use. Small executables can be achieved in any language with UPX or similar tools. Senkwe Chanda wrote: damn near C++ execution speeds Damn near C, not C++ execution speeds. To see what I mean, code this both in C++ and Delphi and take a look at the ASM code generated:
#include "stdafx.h"
template<int N>
class Factorial {
public:
enum { value = N * Factorial<N-1>::value };
};template<>
class Factorial<1> {
public:
enum { value = 1 };
};int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])
{
std::cout << Factorial<5>::value;
return 0;
}Senkwe Chanda wrote: fuss free deployment Three letters: BDE Senkwe Chanda wrote: pure OO What does 'pure OO' mean? Senkwe Chanda wrote: The IDE's were great This is a matter of taste. IMHO, too many floating small windows made a too confuse IDE. A Coreldraw-like approach to an IDE. There are people who loves it. I hate it. Nothing beats MDI for coding. I loved Borland tools at DOS time. I used Turbo Pascal from 3 to 6, and I loved it. Turbo Vision was great. Turbo C 2.0 was 'da tool' at its time, Turbo C++ was slow at compiling, but great, too. But, IMHO, Borland didn't achieve the same quality levels on Windows. It's a pity. :(( Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -- Bruce Schneier By the way, dog_spawn isn't a nickname - it is my name with an underscore instead of a space. -- dog_spawn
Daniel Turini wrote: Three letters: BDE heh, I've never used the BDE as the last time I touched Delphi was in 1999. But I'm feeling nostalgic because I had a great time with it. I'd like to revisit it for a personal project. Daniel Turini wrote: What does 'pure OO' mean? I just meant that Delphi is as object oriented as Java at least, and Java is held up as an example of a true OO language. It's all semantics I guess, no MI for example (I think). As for the IDE's, I actually thought they were great. But I guess it's an acquired taste like you say. Daniel Turini wrote: Damn near C, not C++ execution speeds. I didn't understand this statement though :-) I thought the speed difference between C and C++ was negligible. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: ...sorry... cracks me up.... ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Shaun Austin: .NET Specialist. Spreading the word of .NET to the world... well the UK... well my tiny corner of it!! :-D
-
Daniel Turini wrote: Three letters: BDE heh, I've never used the BDE as the last time I touched Delphi was in 1999. But I'm feeling nostalgic because I had a great time with it. I'd like to revisit it for a personal project. Daniel Turini wrote: What does 'pure OO' mean? I just meant that Delphi is as object oriented as Java at least, and Java is held up as an example of a true OO language. It's all semantics I guess, no MI for example (I think). As for the IDE's, I actually thought they were great. But I guess it's an acquired taste like you say. Daniel Turini wrote: Damn near C, not C++ execution speeds. I didn't understand this statement though :-) I thought the speed difference between C and C++ was negligible. Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Senkwe Chanda wrote: heh, I've never used the BDE as the last time I touched Delphi was in 1999. But I'm feeling nostalgic because I had a great time with it. I'd like to revisit it for a personal project. As long as you steer away from BDE, it will be fun! :) Senkwe Chanda wrote: I thought the speed difference between C and C++ was negligible. With C++ and STL, among other things, it started being possible to do template metaprogramming. Template metaprogramming solves several things at compile time, instead of runtime. That's what my example is doing: it is calculating the factorial at compile time, not at runtime. As another example, using proper template coding you can reduce the virtual method calls to the bare minimum. Several WTL, STL and ATL coding rely on templates to achieve better performance. 'const' is another keyword, that when properly applied, can hint the compiler to make some performance optimizations. That's why I don't consider C and C++ speeds the same. A properly coded C++ program can achieve performance levels that C code would only achieve through some ugly wizardry. Trying to make bits uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -- Bruce Schneier By the way, dog_spawn isn't a nickname - it is my name with an underscore instead of a space. -- dog_spawn
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Senkwe Chanda wrote: pure OO Really ? I remember quite a few OO limitations ? Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
-
Senkwe Chanda wrote: pure OO Really ? I remember quite a few OO limitations ? Elaine :rose: The tigress is here :-D
My bad, I should have said it's about as object oriented as Java or C# Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
-
I've always liked Delphi since my varsity days. The IDE's were great, and Object Pascal was not a toy language. Small executables, damn near C++ execution speeds, elegant exception handling, fuss free deployment, pure OO, Anders Hejlsberg(sp) influenced. So, why is it that there is no Delphi content over here at CP? Have you guys used it and if so, what did you like/dislike about it? Would Delphi articles make the cut here at CP? Okay I'm outta questions :-) Woke up this morning...and got myself a blog
Your assertions are debatable, but not by me (hate pascal, never used Delphi). However, the answer to Senkwe Chanda wrote: Why is there no Delphi content? is probably very simple: No-one's submitting good Delphi articles. Hard to have content, when no-one cares, right?
But in the end, it's all just database access right? And that stuff is just plain boring.
- David Stone, not a programming question but...