Delphi version survey - Results Posted

Delphi version survey results.

466 responses.  Thanks to everyone that participated.  The following 
link will take you to a Google docs spreadsheet (with some basic 
charts) of the results.

http://tinyurl.com/d7axkb6

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
12/23/2012 8:03:21 PM
embarcadero.delphi.non-tech 5933 articles. 1 followers. Follow

71 Replies
492 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 36

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:03:21 -0800, Kevin Powick <nospam@spamless.com>
wrote:

>Delphi version survey results.
>
>466 responses.  Thanks to everyone that participated.  The following 
>link will take you to a Google docs spreadsheet (with some basic 
>charts) of the results.
>
>http://tinyurl.com/d7axkb6

In other words, a *LOT* of people have bought versions that they
aren't using.

Embarcadero, this should be a *BIG* wake-up call about quality
control!
0
Loren
12/23/2012 8:17:12 PM
So finally there is a version of Delphi more popular than Delphi 7. 
Interesting.
0
Gilbert
12/23/2012 9:47:38 PM
Am 23.12.2012 21:17, schrieb Loren Pechtel:
> In other words, a *LOT* of people have bought versions that they
> aren't using.

At least not using most.

I think the numbers are quite natural. XE2 is the version used most 
often and XE3 is the one that is going into that place. Given the fact 
that some libraries are not immediately available with any new version 
and one has to plan the migration (perhaps for the holidays), this 
sounds pretty reasonable to me. I remember making the overall switch 
from XE to XE2 about four month after release when all libraries had 
arrived and I had the time to change all the build scripts and such.

> Embarcadero, this should be a *BIG* wake-up call about quality
> control!

I cannot follow your conclusion here (at least not here).

One should repeat this survey in about six month to see how it really 
comes out at the end.

-- 
Uwe Raabe
Embarcadero MVP
Certified Delphi Master Developer
Uwe's Blog: The Art of Delphi Programming <http://www.uweraabe.de/>
0
Uwe
12/23/2012 9:57:44 PM
On 2012-12-23 15:17:12 -0500, Loren Pechtel <lorenpechtel@hotmail.com> said:

> In other words, a *LOT* of people have bought versions that they
> aren't using.
> 
> Embarcadero, this should be a *BIG* wake-up call about quality
> control!

Possibly.  If you're on SA, you're getting new versions, but if you 
have a large, older (i.e. non unicode) codebase to maintain you're 
likely not using those new versions.

That's the case for me.  My first upgrade after D7 was D2010.  I was 
suitably happy that I got onto SA and happy to get XE, but XE2 and XE3 
have been a disappointment.  My plan is to NOT renew my SA until EMBT 
gets their act together.

With D7 and XE, there is nothing I won't be able to do for my clients.  
Web and mobile are a different story, but EMBT isn't the answer there 
anyway, IMO.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
12/23/2012 10:07:34 PM
I notice that a very large percentage  is still using an ANSI version of Delphi for everyday work despite owning a unicode version of Delphi. I can't say that surprises me, the same applies to 3 out of  6 developers in our department.
0
Arthur
12/23/2012 11:16:44 PM
Kevin,

| Delphi version survey results.

Interesting to me how "popular," both current and future use, D7 is!  


-- 

   Q 

12/23/2012 15:29:49

1.19.1.372  [Q'sBrokenToolBar] [Running on TQ]
0
Quentin
12/23/2012 11:30:33 PM
On 2012-12-23 18:30:33 -0500, Quentin Correll <qcorrell@pacNObell.net> said:

> 
> Interesting to me how "popular," both current and future use, D7 is!

But is it surprising?  D7 was a solid version, and with 3rd party 
add-ins, the IDE can have most of the worthwhile features of the latest 
versions.

If you don't need to support Unicode nor care about some of the newer 
language features (aka hacks), D7 is still a good bet for many.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
12/24/2012 12:51:54 AM
Kevin Powick wrote:

> If you don't need to support Unicode nor care about some of the newer 
> language features (aka hacks), D7 is still a good bet for many.

Indeed it is, but in my new job, I have to maintain an app in D7 as I
migrate it to XE3.

I find the D7 IDE quite painful to use after being used to the new IDE.


-- 
Nick
0
Nick
12/24/2012 1:32:05 AM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> I find the D7 IDE quite painful to use after being used to the new
> IDE.

Try going from Delphi 4. Ouch!

-- 
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
0
Dave
12/24/2012 2:29:27 AM
On 2012-12-23 20:32:05 -0500, Nick Hodges <nickhodges@gmail.com> said:

> 
> I find the D7 IDE quite painful to use after being used to the new IDE.

Oh, I like the XE IDE quite a bit, but add-ins like MMX and cnPack IDE 
Wizards make D7 more than adequate for me.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
12/24/2012 2:43:21 AM
I am assuming EMB is doing a dial home - so I start Delphi almost every day, XE as well as XE3 in order to fake their statistics. 

> My plan is to NOT renew my SA until EMBT
> gets their act together.
I have decided for a similar strategy on Windows in general especially .net.

Totally independent whether MS, Devexpress or anyone else... things no one ordered are implemented. Did I order Win8 or WinRT? Devexpress especially - .net stuff price increased 50% - not sure if DXTreme is included, Universal subscription add-ons (Reporting Server and Dashboard require licensing by your customers),  provide an installer that does something. Installing things I did not order, installs the components into every VS installed on the machine. Then I wanted to uninstall - components not remove
d from the IDE - unregistering components crashed ... Then I found out that Devexpress provides a special utility for this purpose but the problems can occur with every component set installed into VS in general. Then I put things on hold... Suspicious. Let's see what develops at Redmond.

I always install things and fake the statistics ... Reminds me of a short period short before 2k when commercial tool support for Java was so expensive that almost no one took it anymore, for a certain period. .net is the same now - time to forget about.

Mike

> {quote:title=Kevin Powick wrote:}{quote}
> On 2012-12-23 18:30:33 -0500, Quentin Correll <qcorrell@pacNObell.net> said:
> 
> > 
> > Interesting to me how "popular," both current and future use, D7 is!
> 
> But is it surprising?  D7 was a solid version, and with 3rd party 
> add-ins, the IDE can have most of the worthwhile features of the latest 
> versions.
> 
> If you don't need to support Unicode nor care about some of the newer 
> language features (aka hacks), D7 is still a good bet for many.
> 
> --
> Kevin Powick
0
Michael
12/24/2012 11:16:21 PM
Dave Nottage wrote:

> 
> Try going from Delphi 4. Ouch!

LOL -- yeah, that would be wild.

Maybe I'll install this Delphi 2.0 disk I have, just for the fun of it.

-- 
Nick
0
Nick
12/25/2012 3:01:35 AM
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 13:57:44 -0800, Uwe Raabe <uwe@uweraabe.de> wrote:

>Am 23.12.2012 21:17, schrieb Loren Pechtel:
>> In other words, a *LOT* of people have bought versions that they
>> aren't using.
>
>At least not using most.
>
>I think the numbers are quite natural. XE2 is the version used most 
>often and XE3 is the one that is going into that place. Given the fact 
>that some libraries are not immediately available with any new version 
>and one has to plan the migration (perhaps for the holidays), this 
>sounds pretty reasonable to me. I remember making the overall switch 
>from XE to XE2 about four month after release when all libraries had 
>arrived and I had the time to change all the build scripts and such.

That is understandable but that's not the only pattern.

In everything up through 2007 the data looks reasonable--there are
people that for whatever reason have settled on a version and aren't
upgrading.  I strongly suspect these are programs basically in
maintenance mode.

Where I see a problem is 2009/20210/DXE/DXE2 data.  The highest owned
data is quite different than the highest used.  A lot of people own
DXE2 but are using earlier versions.

>> Embarcadero, this should be a *BIG* wake-up call about quality
>> control!
>
>I cannot follow your conclusion here (at least not here).
>
>One should repeat this survey in about six month to see how it really 
>comes out at the end.

It's been a lot more than six months since DXE2.
0
Loren
12/25/2012 3:10:09 AM
I did a quick count: 168 respondents (36%) use an Ansi version of Delphi as their everyday tool. The majority of these (128) actually do own a more recent version of Delphi but they are not using it. So it seems the lack of Ansi compatibility is still preventing a lot of of developers from migrating to a more recent Delphi version, they are lagging behind at least 5 versions now. Still happy with the decision not to implement a "unicode compiler switch", Borcadero?
0
Arthur
12/25/2012 8:35:24 AM
Le 25/12/12 03:01, Nick Hodges a écrit :

> LOL -- yeah, that would be wild.
>
> Maybe I'll install this Delphi 2.0 disk I have, just for the fun of it.

I vaguely remember having to revert to Delphi 3 in the days of Delphi 7.

All of a sudden, all of those keystrokes and shortcuts just weren't 
there :-)

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [Team OOAD]
0
Joanna
12/25/2012 10:06:18 AM
correction - .net stuff prices increased by 35% - anyway. Does not make a huge difference. I took the original price USD 439 from 2006 which is 55% in 6 years or 7.

> {quote:title=Michael Thuma wrote:}{quote}
 .net stuff price increased 50% > 
> Mike
>
0
Michael
12/25/2012 11:27:11 AM
<Arthur Hoornweg> wrote
>I did a quick count: 168 respondents (36%) use an Ansi version of Delphi as 
>their everyday tool. The majority of these (128) actually do own a more 
>recent version of Delphi but they are not using it. So it seems the lack of 
>Ansi compatibility is still preventing a lot of of developers from 
>migrating to a more recent Delphi version, they are lagging behind at least 
>5 versions now. Still happy with the decision not to implement a "unicode 
>compiler switch", Borcadero?

Almost all violent crime convicts ate potatoes within 48 hours of their 
crimes ...

(So, of all possible explanations for why people might use an older version, 
why pick out that particular correlation as somehow causal/significant?)

bobD
0
Robert
12/25/2012 12:12:08 PM
> (So, of all possible explanations for why people might use an older version, 
> why pick out that particular correlation as somehow 

Buying a new version and then not using it should be an exceptional situation (who likes to throw away money and face the wrath of the boss?) but D2009 introduced the mother of all breaking changes. Also, why don't we see a similar effect among strictly Ansi and strictly Unicode versions? I do notice that some users seem to prefer DXE over XE2 or XE3. XE must be a particularly good release.

I don't know about you, but during the entire upgrade cycle of all Delphi versions up to version 2007 we were usually up and running within a few days. Never had a reason not to use the latest version. That changed instantly with D2009. Half of our team are still struggling with that.
0
Arthur
12/25/2012 1:15:44 PM
Hello,

> (So, of all possible explanations for why people might use an older 
version, 
> why pick out that particular correlation as somehow causal/significant?)

Well in my case it was true. I was on D2007 and happy. I purchased XE 
and did not start using it until 5 months ago. Why? Unicode.

I support about 25+ protocols and many of those are ASCII based. The 
Unicode only strings created a great amount of work to upgrade to XE.

Now that I have made the jump and spent the tons of time/money to use 
XE, I do not regret it but, I really have not seen the advantage. I do 
not need Unicode.

I have noticed that the time from compile to run in the debugger is 
longer. 

The only real advantage is... I am over the Unicode hump and if I decide 
to upgrade to a later version, Unicode is not barring the path.

Regards,

Mark
0
Mark
12/25/2012 1:21:06 PM
Arthur Hoornweg wrote:

> Half of our team are still struggling with that.

"My" team didn't even notice that we are now using Unicode strings
instead of ANSI strings. Most of our migration issues were related to
DBX which brought up bugs in our code like not checking for EOF before
accessing rows (D7 just retuned NULL, but D2009 throws "reader has no
lines" exceptions).


-- 
Andreas Hausladen
0
Andreas
12/25/2012 2:25:17 PM
On 23/12/2012 21:47, Gilbert Padilla wrote:
> So finally there is a version of Delphi more popular than Delphi 7.
> Interesting.
>
Amongst the self-selecting people that participated.......
0
David
12/25/2012 4:18:58 PM
On 25/12/2012 08:35, Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
> I did a quick count: 168 respondents (36%) use an Ansi version of Delphi as their everyday tool. The majority of these (128) actually do own a more recent version of Delphi but they are not using it. So it seems the lack of Ansi compatibility is still preventing a lot of of developers from migrating to a more recent Delphi version, they are lagging behind at least 5 versions now. Still happy with the decision not to implement a "unicode compiler switch", Borcadero?

Correlation does not imply causality.
0
David
12/25/2012 4:19:39 PM
<Arthur Hoornweg> wrote
>
> Buying a new version and then not using it should be an exceptional 
> situation (who likes to throw away money and face the wrath of the boss?)

Certainly. But programmers in general do spend a lot of time doing app 
maintenance/enhancement, and that isn't always to update them to the current 
version. I have an app I use just about every day that I still have in 
D7--nothing to do tiwh unicorn, just uses an old 3rd party component set 
dependency. I also have XE in maintenance, though I prefer XE2.

> but D2009 introduced the mother of all breaking changes.

That depends entirely on what your code was doing.

> Also, why don't we see a similar effect among strictly Ansi and strictly 
> Unicode versions?

One hypothesis might be that D7 was widely recognized as a solid, definitive 
release for the 'classic' Delphi IDE. XE was again a sold release, and XE2 
even better. So you might suppose that those emerging as 'sticky' versions 
has everything to do with general release quality, and nothing at all to do 
with Unicode. Other factors that might contribute to XE being sticky is that 
Emb really made a strong marketing effort with it to get all the 
non-upgraders back into the fold (XE was really a "Delphi's back' release), 
and that yearly updates, despite SA, are just too frequent for 3PC-breaking 
updates.

> I don't know about you, but during the entire upgrade cycle of all Delphi 
> versions
> up to version 2007 we were usually up and running within a few days. Never 
> had
> a reason not to use the latest version. That changed instantly with D2009. 
> Half of
> our team are still struggling with that.

That sounds a bit unusual in both respects. Transitions of 3PC components 
are often cited as hard (the process of going from the DevEx TdxGrid3 to 
later versions being a really major deal).

Just out of curiousity--Since I do use both pre- and post- unicode versions 
and can't say I'm ever very conscious of the string type change, what 
specific type of code is the issue?

bobD
0
Robert
12/25/2012 4:38:13 PM
Good for ET for publishing some results, although I think there were more questions. I guess the message here is that most people are planning to be on XE3 in six months - so get moving!

I was  on D7 until changing to XE, and that was a little late. Still, the conversion took MUCH longer than I would have agreed to. I think I still have Unicode issues that I took the time to make demonstration projects for, on QC that were never resolved (or never updated - I can't tell). I don't expect they will be as there is no fixing being done to XE. So, I stopped checking. It did make me wonder what people were doing with XE if no one is having the same Unicode problems.

Of course, I'm in no hurry to upgrade to anything at this point.

Also, as a Delphi Pro user, much of what is in the package is a sampler that has no immediate use. Documentation rarely specifies what works and what is just a sampler. Much of what is there I haven't tried as I usually find myself struggling only to learn something will never work in Professional. Much of the "improvements" actually extend the product into other areas. That's great, but I think there are few people who work in all these areas. I suspect that is one reason that D7 lasted so long - the min
imal improvements to basic functionality compared to the expansion into new areas.
0
Patrick
12/25/2012 4:52:04 PM
<Patrick Moloney> wrote
> reason that D7 lasted so long - the minimal improvements to basic
> functionality compared to the expansion into new areas.

Probably depends on coding style as well. For me, the addition of generics 
and enhanced RTTI features were very much core improvements.

bobD
0
Robert
12/25/2012 5:55:51 PM
David,

| Amongst the self-selecting people that participated...

Yep, there is that. <g>  


-- 

   Q 

12/25/2012 11:35:57

1.19.1.372  [Q'sBrokenToolBar] [Running on TQ]
0
Quentin
12/25/2012 7:36:11 PM
On 25/12/2012 13:15, Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
> D2009 introduced the mother of all breaking changes.

And also allowed us to build Unicode apps out of the box. Mostly with 
not a lot more than a re-compile. If you are still struggling with this 
5 years down the line either you aren't trying hard enough (read not 
really trying at all), or your code is hopeless.

If Embarcadero introduce new versions with breaking changes they get 
castigated. If they introduce new versions without breaking changes they 
get castigated.

In the case of Unicode they had two break a couple of eggs to make the 
omelette. Upgrading you code to make use of improved tools is part of 
life. It doesn't actually take a lot of time. Time to get over it, or 
stick with D7.
0
David
12/25/2012 8:30:28 PM
>So, I stopped checking. It did make me wonder what people were doing with XE if no one is having the same Unicode problems.
Many people simply did not migrate. Myself, I restarted with XE. The need to migrate to Unicode is low. 

First of all XE3 installed - 'you' should install in order to get the 'free' things when upgrading. Many people have SA in order to get the free things - install. DXE2 Upd. 4 is said to be a good release. Within 6 months we already think of XE4 very likely.

XE3 is not bad at all. I am not sure if and when the nextgen Delphi compiler will be ready for desktop development too. Not sure what will happen to existing code then... nextgen Delphi is different. I think something comparable to what will come with MobileStudio. I don't know if ARC will be available for a desktop oriented Delphi compiler maybe based on LLVM. Maybe it will take a few years until this migration will be finished. Don't forget, maybe, I have no info, it can happen that you will have to dro
p your existing code anyway. Not sure.

Mike


> {quote:title=Patrick Moloney wrote:}{quote}
> Good for ET for publishing some results, although I think there were more questions. I guess the message here is that most people are planning to be on XE3 in six months - so get moving!
> 
> I was  on D7 until changing to XE, and that was a little late. Still, the conversion took MUCH longer than I would have agreed to. I think I still have Unicode issues that I took the time to make demonstration projects for, on QC that were never resolved (or never updated - I can't tell). I don't expect they will be as there is no fixing being done to XE. So, I stopped checking. It did make me wonder what people were doing with XE if no one is having the same Unicode problems.
> 
> Of course, I'm in no hurry to upgrade to anything at this point.
> 
> Also, as a Delphi Pro user, much of what is in the package is a sampler that has no immediate use. Documentation rarely specifies what works and what is just a sampler. Much of what is there I haven't tried as I usually find myself struggling only to learn something will never work in Professional. Much of the "improvements" actually extend the product into other areas. That's great, but I think there are few people who work in all these areas. I suspect that is one reason that D7 lasted so long - the m
inimal improvements to basic functionality compared to the expansion into new areas.
0
Michael
12/25/2012 8:45:22 PM
"David Heffernan" wrote
> 5 years down the line either you aren't trying hard enough (read not
> really trying at all), or your code is hopeless.

Or, the specific problem domain he's coding for (which might require ASCII 
strings--some interfaces/machine integrations do) or the specific way in 
which the code was written (highly optimized to meet certain timing or 
memory layout requirements, for example) just happened to be a bad 
combination for this change. That doesn't mean the code wasn't skillfully 
written for its time and purpose.

bobD
0
Robert
12/25/2012 8:45:37 PM
Arthur Hoornweg wrote:

> I notice that a very large percentage  is still using an ANSI version
> of Delphi for everyday work despite owning a unicode version of
> Delphi. I can't say that surprises me, the same applies to 3 out of
> 6 developers in our department.

Why not all? Is there no company or departmental policy?
-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you 
 are only off by a bit."
0
Rudy
12/25/2012 11:02:57 PM
Robert Dawson wrote:

> <Arthur Hoornweg> wrote
> > I did a quick count: 168 respondents (36%) use an Ansi version of
> > Delphi as their everyday tool. The majority of these (128) actually
> > do own a more recent version of Delphi but they are not using it.
> > So it seems the lack of Ansi compatibility is still preventing a
> > lot of of developers from migrating to a more recent Delphi
> > version, they are lagging behind at least 5 versions now. Still
> > happy with the decision not to implement a "unicode compiler
> > switch", Borcadero?
> 
> Almost all violent crime convicts ate potatoes within 48 hours of
> their crimes ...

Probably that survey was not conducted in Asia. <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"The clue train passed his station without stopping." 
 -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
0
Rudy
12/25/2012 11:04:41 PM
Arthur Hoornweg wrote:

> > (So, of all possible explanations for why people might use an older
> > version, why pick out that particular correlation as somehow 
> 
> Buying a new version and then not using it should be an exceptional
> situation (who likes to throw away money and face the wrath of the
> boss?)

Not necessarily. People might not have come around to converting their
code to a Unicode version, but expect to do it soon, or they may expect
to start a new project that does not need to be converted in the
Unicode version. People using old versions might be doing it for legacy
reasons.
-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"It is right noble to fight with wickedness and wrong; the
 mistake is in supposing that spiritual evil can be overcome by
 physical means."
 -- Lydia Maria Child
0
Rudy
12/25/2012 11:07:32 PM
Robert Dawson wrote:

> I have an app I use just about every day that I
> still have in D7--nothing to do tiwh unicorn,

Was that a deliberate typo? <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to
 liberty."
 -- Thomas Jefferson
0
Rudy
12/25/2012 11:08:59 PM
David Heffernan wrote:

> On 25/12/2012 13:15, Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
> > D2009 introduced the mother of all breaking changes.
> 
> And also allowed us to build Unicode apps out of the box. Mostly with 
> not a lot more than a re-compile. If you are still struggling with
> this 5 years down the line either you aren't trying hard enough (read
> not really trying at all), or your code is hopeless.

Fully agreed. But them's fight'n' words. <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"It is your business, when the wall next door catches fire."
 -- Horace
0
Rudy
12/25/2012 11:10:23 PM
Kevin Powick wrote:

> On 2012-12-23 18:30:33 -0500, Quentin Correll
> <qcorrell@pacNObell.net> said:
> 
> > 
> > Interesting to me how "popular," both current and future use, D7 is!
> 
> But is it surprising?  D7 was a solid version, and with 3rd party 
> add-ins, the IDE can have most of the worthwhile features of the
> latest versions.

But the compiler and frameworks lag a few lightyears behind, and so do
the supported technologies. <g>
-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"In America, anybody can be president. That's one of the risks 
 you take." -- Adlai Stevenson (1900-1965)
0
Rudy
12/25/2012 11:13:18 PM
Robert,

| nothing to do tiwh unicorn

LOL! 


-- 

   Q 

12/25/2012 15:44:53

1.19.1.372  [Q'sBrokenToolBar] [Running on TQ]
0
Quentin
12/25/2012 11:45:28 PM
Rudy,

| |  I have an app I use just about every day that I
| |  still have in D7--nothing to do tiwh unicorn,
| 
| Was that a deliberate typo? <g>

I thought so. <g>  


-- 

   Q 

12/25/2012 15:45:40

1.19.1.372  [Q'sBrokenToolBar] [Running on TQ]
0
Quentin
12/25/2012 11:45:55 PM
"Quentin Correll" wrote
> | |  still have in D7--nothing to do tiwh unicorn,
> |
> | Was that a deliberate typo? <g>
>
> I thought so. <g>

naw--MS spell-checking assistance more like ...

bobD
0
Robert
12/26/2012 1:03:40 AM
On 12/25/2012 2:30 PM, David Heffernan wrote:
> On 25/12/2012 13:15, Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
>> D2009 introduced the mother of all breaking changes.
>
> And also allowed us to build Unicode apps out of the box. Mostly with
> not a lot more than a re-compile. If you are still struggling with this
> 5 years down the line either you aren't trying hard enough (read not
> really trying at all), or your code is hopeless.

My biggest issue is when I finally find a third party component that 
might fit my needs and download it, only to find out it was designed 
before Delphi/C++Builder 2009 and I have to convert another guy's code 
without knowing if I am going to break something in the process. 
Converting my components and code was pretty straightforward;  these 
cases are very time-consuming and extremely frustrating.

-- 
There are no dangerous weapons; there are only dangerous men.”
― Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
0
David
12/26/2012 1:31:41 AM
On 2012-12-25 18:13:18 -0500, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) 
<newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> said:

> 
> But the compiler and frameworks lag a few lightyears behind, and so do
> the supported technologies. <g>

Which is only relevant to those requiring "improvements" in these areas.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
12/26/2012 3:56:56 AM
On 2012-12-25 11:52:04 -0500, Patrick Moloney <> said:

> Good for ET for publishing some results

ET?  Embarcadero?

I created the survey and posted the results.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
12/26/2012 3:58:51 AM
On 12/25/2012 7:58 PM, Kevin Powick wrote:
> On 2012-12-25 11:52:04 -0500, Patrick Moloney <> said:
>
>> Good for ET for publishing some results
>
> ET?  Embarcadero?
>
> I created the survey and posted the results.
>

No, they were referring to you as an extra-terrestrial... <G>

David Erbas-White
0
David
12/26/2012 4:01:35 AM
Robert,

| naw--MS spell-checking assistance more like ...

But it didn't catch-fix "tiwh." <g> 


-- 

   Q 

12/25/2012 21:21:49

1.19.1.372  [Q'sBrokenToolBar] [Running on TQ]
0
Quentin
12/26/2012 5:22:27 AM
Kevin Powick wrote:

> On 2012-12-25 18:13:18 -0500, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) 
> <newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> said:
> 
> > 
> > But the compiler and frameworks lag a few lightyears behind, and so
> > do the supported technologies. <g>
> 
> Which is only relevant to those requiring "improvements" in these
> areas.

Well yes, indeed. I gather you do not find them important?

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"I'm trying to see things from your point of view but I can't get 
 my head that far up my ass." --- Unknown
0
Rudy
12/26/2012 11:34:32 AM
Wow! Sorry! I guess I don't hang out here as much any more, and/or wasn't paying attention.
So, I take back my surprise at ET's publishing of the results.
0
Patrick
12/26/2012 1:53:21 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> I find the D7 IDE quite painful to use after being used to the new
> IDE.

I found the new IDE quite painful for a very long time. Once I got a
27" screen, I was able to reduce the font size and make the new layout
acceptable.

Bill
0
William
12/26/2012 2:38:48 PM
On 2012-12-26 06:34:32 -0500, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) 
<newsgroups@rvelthuis.de> said:

> 
> Well yes, indeed. I gather you do not find them important?

Depends on the requirements of a particular project.  Given a choice, 
such as for new projects, I currently use DXE.  However, I have some 
older, D7 code for which a solid business case for migration cannot be 
made.

--
Kevin Powick
0
Kevin
12/26/2012 4:24:59 PM
> {quote:title=Robert Dawson wrote:}{quote}

> That sounds a bit unusual in both respects. Transitions of 3PC components 
> are often cited as hard (the process of going from the DevEx TdxGrid3 to 
> later versions being a really major deal).
> 
> Just out of curiousity--Since I do use both pre- and post- unicode versions 
> and can't say I'm ever very conscious of the string type change, what 
> specific type of code is the issue?
> 

The transition from Ansi to Unicode was tedious for me for several reasons. My main application is a huge beast, consisting of several executables, some DLL COM servers and some NT services. I started working on it nine years ago. It still evolves every day and will probably keep me busy for the next 15 years. Therefore maintaining this application with an outdated version of Delphi *forever* just isn`t an option. 

The software is used by our own company in field laboratories on oil wells and is also used by several oil companies. It is used for acquiring, editing, presenting and distributing oil well data. It is literally being used day and night and it is extremely important for us that it works properly.  

The user interface of the application was already unicode-enabled for a long time (we also work on oil wells in the middle east and in former Soviet countries). It uses the unicode-based LMD Elpack components instead of Delphi´s original VCL components because Borland didn´t have a unicode VCL yet when we needed it. Of course widestrings are used everywhere; all textual and database data is also stored as unicode (NVARCHAR). Wherever unicode text data had to be squeezed through an 8-bit funnel, it was con
verted to UTF8. 

The conversion process had to be done step-by-step and as carefully as possible, using Delphi 2009 instead of a later Delphi version. The reason being that this version doesn´t "break" existing DFM files by streaming new properties. It was necessary to keep the sourcecode 100% compatible with Delphi 2007 during the conversion process so that I could still publish new releases of the program with new features and bugfixes.

Now for the problems. The application interfaces with a whole slew of third party dll´s and libraries. For example, it needs to talk with realtime data acquisition devices, it does data compression, AES data encryption, database replication, it transports data using all sorts of internet protocols, talks to Hayes-compatible modems and Inmarsat satellite terminals on serial ports etcetera. And of course none of these libraries were unicode-based simply because they didn´t need to be. Just about all interne
t data transfer protocols and also the Hayes modem protocol are simply a mixture of ASCII text and binary data. Unicode was never a part of the game.

So, during this conversion process, some tried-and-tested 3rd party libraries had to be replaced with new versions or even alternative products which required testing, testing, testing and even more testing. For example, one really needs to know how a zip/unzip library behaves when it is fed with a corrupted file. Does it throw an exception? Does it recover gracefully without memory leaks? Will it "hang" or will it produce corrupted output?  Does it popup a message box (which would immediately disqualify 
it for use inside NT services) ?  So a lot of code, which was already tested and validated many years ago, had to be re-tested all over again. 

Unicode also introduced many subtle bugs that weren´t immediately obvious. Especially if the code compiles without warnings and even seems to run properly.
For example, my program contains a library which I have written many years ago. It produces data files in Dbase (dbf) format. It compiles without any errors or warnings. Only... after a customer complained, it turned out that the data files it produced suddenly weren´t Dbase compatible anymore after the unit was compiled with Delphi 2009. 

Upon closer examination, it turned out that it is really a very bad idea to use data types "char" and "array of char" inside Delphi records if you intend to write these records into streams; the meaning of "char" has changed between Delphi 2007 and 2009 so the format will be incompatible. This opened a further Box of Pandora - I had to review all code that writes data into streams to find out if it had similar compatibility issues lurking. One really MUST be explicit about ansichar/widechar and pansichar/
pwidechar if one wants to use it in data exchange.  Forget everything you ever knew about "char" and "pchar", avoid these data types like the plague and be explicit!

Anyway, 46 beta versions later, I am about to release the first non-beta version of my application compiled with Delphi 2009. So far it runs smoothly.  The next step will be to see how it behaves when I compile it with Delphi XE.  I use Finalbuilder so it is easy for me to do test compilations with different Delphi versions. I do foresee some problems there, because Codegear started using a different version of the ADO interfaces since Delphi 2010. My in-process COM servers share an ADO connection with th
e application that calls them and some of these applications were written by colleagues that use different versions of Delphi so it might be a problem.


I am certainly not saying that I spent a year just converting my application to unicode. But I am saying that it can be a difficult and serious task, depending on the type of the application and also the type of code it has to interface with.  Some applications may be easy to port. Some may be extremely hard. The more dependencies the code has, the harder it gets.
0
Arthur
12/27/2012 12:29:56 PM
> {quote:title=Mark Marks wrote:}{quote}


> The only real advantage is... I am over the Unicode hump and if I decide 
> to upgrade to a later version, Unicode is not barring the path.

That pretty much sums up my feelings and experiences.  From the numbers published above, I read that this "bump" is still locking out a significant proportion of developers which must be costing Embarcadero a fortune.  Unicode can be a killer feature but also a killing feature.
0
Arthur
12/27/2012 12:56:05 PM
> {quote:title=Robert Dawson wrote:}{quote}

> Probably depends on coding style as well. For me, the addition of generics 
> and enhanced RTTI features were very much core improvements.
> 


I would be interested to learn in what respect RTTI is a killer feature and if it justifies the overhead.  For example, I do stuff like XML streaming (properties , attributes and object members) all without RTTI. 

About generics, they look nice, but I haven´t used them yet. Can they also be expressed as interfaces?  I mostly don´t need a tlist<t> but I´d much rather have an iList<iSomeInterfacetype>. But that pattern is already very nicely covered by tInterfaceList / iInterfacelist, so what gives?
0
Arthur
12/27/2012 1:13:23 PM
<Arthur Hoornweg> wrote

> ]...] The application interfaces with a whole slew of
> third party dll´s and libraries. For example, it needs to talk with
> realtime data acquisition devices, it does data compression, AES data
> encryption, database replication, it transports data using all sorts of
> internet protocols, talks to Hayes-compatible modems and Inmarsat
> satellite terminals on serial ports etcetera.

Got it--I figured it was something gnarly like that.

To a great extent, you were absolutely upside-down for this feature 
switch--already unicode whereever you needed to be, and straight char 
arrays/strings whereever you couldn't be, so the decision to make the 
transition as easy as possible for most folks effectively did nothing to 
help you, and changed things only were it either was unwanted or actually 
hurt.

And I don't see a lot you could have done differently. I've got a good 
friend working mostly C++ at the moment who's a big fan of typedefs, but I 
doubt even his code could survive a redefinition of char.

That doesn't mean (to me at least) that they made the wrong decision--these 
are always utilitarian tradeoffs. But I understand your pain, and why our 
code transitioned easily while yours didn't.

Good luck on your post-beta launch, and my respect for your gutting it out 
while also keeping the relese version moving.

bobD
0
Robert
12/28/2012 1:08:09 AM
On 24/12/2012 00:30, Quentin Correll wrote:
> Kevin,
>
> | Delphi version survey results.
>
> Interesting to me how "popular," both current and future use, D7 is!
>
>

Indeed. D7 was compact and reliable. I bought almost all versions 
afterwards, and decided them to be crap for various reasons. X2 is the 
first one after D7, I consider useable. First it supports 64 bits and 
second it allows to add Turbo Asynch. XE3 is again to be considered crap 
as I wasn't able to add Turbo Asynch. It is somewhat unfortunate when an 
otherwise good product is being judged by its add-ons but ...

I still do new little projects in D7, and have the problem to get it 
running under Win7-64

Rene
0
Rene
12/31/2012 6:31:45 PM
Rene Tschaggelar wrote:

> It is somewhat unfortunate when an 
> otherwise good product is being judged by its add-ons but ...

Not really, as Delphi all but created the component concept. 

Bill
0
William
12/31/2012 6:38:21 PM
William Meyer wrote:

> Rene Tschaggelar wrote:
> 
> > It is somewhat unfortunate when an 
> > otherwise good product is being judged by its add-ons but ...
> 
> Not really, as Delphi all but created the component concept. 

I thought that was VB? <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"If one acknowledges a group or a nation willing to commit
 atrocities, then one must also acknowledges the existence of a
 nation willing to commit atrocities to blame on the first
 nation."
 -- Michael Rivero
0
Rudy
12/31/2012 6:55:30 PM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> I thought that was VB? <g>

Having fiddled with VB 1.0, I would say it was far from a successful
initial product.

Bill
0
William
12/31/2012 7:13:57 PM
William Meyer wrote:

> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> 
> > I thought that was VB? <g>
> 
> Having fiddled with VB 1.0, I would say it was far from a successful
> initial product.

I tried a later version, and I agree, but they started the component
idea (OK, they were OCXes, but still).



-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people
 are conservatives" -- John Stuart Mill
0
Rudy
12/31/2012 11:41:00 PM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> I tried a later version, and I agree, but they started the component
> idea (OK, they were OCXes, but still).

And that approach was a real PITA. I wasted only a few days before
uninstalling it. VB was an idea; Delphi 1.0 was a productive tool.

Bill
0
William
1/1/2013 4:33:37 AM
William Meyer wrote:

> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> 
> > I tried a later version, and I agree, but they started the component
> > idea (OK, they were OCXes, but still).
> 
> And that approach was a real PITA. I wasted only a few days before
> uninstalling it. 

Sure, but that doesn't take away they were first. <g>

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"Whoever controls the media, the images, controls the culture."
 -- Allen Ginsberg
0
Rudy
1/1/2013 10:48:52 PM
On 24.12.2012 00:16, Arthur Hoornweg wrote:
> I notice that a very large percentage  is still using an ANSI version of Delphi for everyday work despite owning a unicode version of Delphi. I can't say that surprises me, the same applies to 3 out of  6 developers in our department.
>

For my part, I have big projects where btw. any, I test strings for 
characters that now are unicode, but the resulting files __Should__ be 
ansi strings. And input strings may be anything (at least I now managed 
to support Unicode input, but in XE2 version, I have many problems when 
strings should be ansistring and many string function in xe2 don't 
support ansi input. So at moment, testing with xe2 is put on hold on 
that project.
But for my last work project I now use XE2 :-)
0
Alf
1/1/2013 11:40:51 PM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> Sure, but that doesn't take away they were first. <g>

Better to be second and right, than first and worst.

Bill
0
William
1/2/2013 12:27:26 AM
William Meyer wrote:

> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> 
> > Sure, but that doesn't take away they were first. <g>
> 
> Better to be second and right, than first and worst.

Fully agreed, but that was not my point. 

Fact is that it did not "Delphi" or Borland created the component
concept, it appeared in VB first. That was my point.
-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"I'm not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. 
 We are the president." -- Hillary Clinton.
0
Rudy
1/2/2013 12:32:04 AM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> William Meyer wrote:
> 
> > Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
> > 
> > > Sure, but that doesn't take away they were first. <g>
> > 
> > Better to be second and right, than first and worst.
> 
> Fully agreed, but that was not my point. 
> 
> Fact is that it did not "Delphi" or Borland created the component
> concept, it appeared in VB first. That was my point.

Hmm, I'll rephrase that: "Fact is that not "Delphi" or Borland created
the component concept, it appeared in VB first. That was my point."

-- 
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB)    http://www.teamb.com

"Always be wary of any helpful item that weighs less than its 
 operating manual."
ó Terry Pratchett (Jingo)
0
Rudy
1/2/2013 12:38:33 AM
Le 02/01/13 00:32, Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) a écrit :

> Fact is that it did not "Delphi" or Borland created the component
> concept, it appeared in VB first. That was my point.

They might not have been visual but Clipper also had a limited number of 
"components"

Joanna

-- 
Joanna Carter [Team OOAD]
0
Joanna
1/2/2013 9:21:39 PM
Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:

> Hmm, I'll rephrase that: "Fact is that not "Delphi" or Borland created
> the component concept, it appeared in VB first. That was my point."

As may be. However, as I recall, in VB 1.0, it was all pretty sketchy,
and not presented nearly as well--or as usably--as in D1. We had the
CWG from D1, and 3rd party components began to appear almost
immediately. I do recall using an OCX in Delphi. The contrast between
it and almost any Delphi component was huge.

Anyway, I already granted that VB was first. But I also stipulate that,
having brought the concept to market, MS seemed befuddled about how
best to exploit it.

Bill
0
William
1/2/2013 11:24:06 PM
William Meyer wrote:

The weakness of VB was that it required C++ to build components.

Delphi 1 was notable for the ease of which you could write components
in Delphi itself.

Or, put another way, Delphi 1 made the legend that is TSmiley possible.
;-)

-- 
Nick
0
Nick
1/3/2013 2:07:29 AM
On 1/2/2013 6:07 PM, Nick Hodges wrote:

> Or, put another way, Delphi 1 made the legend that is TSmiley possible.
> ;-)
>

ROTFLMAO!

Thanks, I needed that! <G>

David Erbas-White
0
David
1/3/2013 2:39:35 AM
On 01-01-2013 10:03, William Meyer wrote:
> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
>
>> I tried a later version, and I agree, but they started the component
>> idea (OK, they were OCXes, but still).
>
> And that approach was a real PITA. I wasted only a few days before
> uninstalling it. VB was an idea; Delphi 1.0 was a productive tool.
>
> Bill
>
After MS shifted to the OCX approach for components everything got 
spoiled. The VBX approach was just smart and hassle free.

In fact the very idea of having components in binary format itself 
guaranteed that any developer with a descent dev tool can build 
components for VB!
0
Yogi
1/3/2013 3:19:05 PM
On 02-01-2013 05:57, William Meyer wrote:
> Rudy Velthuis (TeamB) wrote:
>
>> Sure, but that doesn't take away they were first. <g>
>
> Better to be second and right, than first and worst.
>
I think it is the other way around. They were first and got it right in 
the very first shot. Delphi was second but got it all wrong by making 
VCL compiler dependent.
0
Yogi
1/3/2013 3:20:29 PM
On 03-01-2013 07:37, Nick Hodges wrote:
> William Meyer wrote:
>
> The weakness of VB was that it required C++ to build components.
>
> Delphi 1 was notable for the ease of which you could write components
> in Delphi itself.
>
> Or, put another way, Delphi 1 made the legend that is TSmiley possible.
> ;-)
>

Besides C++ there was and is (even today) Delphi. Delhi 1 allows one to 
write VBX  and later version still support writing OCX. :)
0
Yogi
1/3/2013 3:30:43 PM
Nick Hodges wrote:

> The weakness of VB was that it required C++ to build components.

Oh, if only that had been its only weakness!!!!
 
> Delphi 1 was notable for the ease of which you could write components
> in Delphi itself.
> 
> Or, put another way, Delphi 1 made the legend that is TSmiley
> possible.  ;-)

Your modesty is overwhelming. ;)

Bill
0
William
1/3/2013 5:20:25 PM
On 28/12/2012 01:08, Robert Dawson wrote:
> <Arthur Hoornweg> wrote
>
>> ]...] The application interfaces with a whole slew of
>> third party dll´s and libraries. For example, it needs to talk with
>> realtime data acquisition devices, it does data compression, AES data
>> encryption, database replication, it transports data using all sorts of
>> internet protocols, talks to Hayes-compatible modems and Inmarsat
>> satellite terminals on serial ports etcetera.
>
> Got it--I figured it was something gnarly like that.
>
> To a great extent, you were absolutely upside-down for this feature
> switch--already unicode whereever you needed to be, and straight char
> arrays/strings whereever you couldn't be, so the decision to make the
> transition as easy as possible for most folks effectively did nothing to
> help you, and changed things only were it either was unwanted or actually
> hurt.
>
> And I don't see a lot you could have done differently. I've got a good
> friend working mostly C++ at the moment who's a big fan of typedefs, but I
> doubt even his code could survive a redefinition of char.
>
> That doesn't mean (to me at least) that they made the wrong decision--these
> are always utilitarian tradeoffs. But I understand your pain, and why our
> code transitioned easily while yours didn't.
>
> Good luck on your post-beta launch, and my respect for your gutting it out
> while also keeping the relese version moving.
>
> bobD
>

I'm with Arthur on this one, and we are still on D2007 for that sole 
reason (unicode), as are many others, even though we have various later 
versions that we do not use.

CB
0
Charles
1/4/2013 12:17:48 PM
Reply:

Similar Artilces:

Delphi Version Survey
I posted a quick, three question, anonymous survey on the version of Delphi that you use.  Results will be released to all on 26 December. This is the same survey that I posted to the Delphi G+ group, so no need to take it again if you already have. http://tinyurl.com/bodgv4w Please take 1 minute to fill out the survey. It should be interesting to see which version handles the bulk of our development work. -- Kevin Powick Kevin Powick wrote: Done went and done did it! -- nhoJ Kevin Powick wrote: > I posted a quick, three question, anonymous survey on ...

Delphi and Delphi for .Net
It seems that Delphi for .Net is slower than Delphi Win32 native applicaiton. I would like to know is it true all .Net application is slower than Win32 native applicaiton or it is Delphi for .Net only. Your information is great appreciated, Inung On 2011-06-21 18:20:17 +0100, Inung Huang said: > It seems that Delphi for .Net is slower than Delphi Win32 native applicaiton. > I would like to know is it true all .Net application is slower than > Win32 native applicaiton or it is Delphi for .Net only. If you are only running the code in the application once then, yes, yo...

Will Delphi XE2 co-exist with other Delphi versions ?
Can I install it on a machine that's got other Delphi's on it ? Lut Mentz wrote: > Can I install it on a machine that's got other Delphi's on it ? Yes. As far as I know that has always been the case. -- -Mike (TeamB) Lut Mentz wrote: > Can I install it on a machine that's got other Delphi's on it ? Yes -- it has always been the case that the new version co-exists peacefully with all the older ones. -- Nick Hodges -- Product Development Manager Gateway Ticketing Systems http://www.gatewayticketing.com > {quote:title=Mike Williams ...

HELP! Trying to Complie old Delphi program on any version of Delphi
Hey everyone I'm new to the programming world and unfortunately I have come across a big problem that I will hope I can get some help with. I have a program that was apparently created using delphi 3 and then finished using delphi 4 with some additional parts added later. I have found copies of amost every version of delphi ever made and installed them on my pc and attempted to compile this program in question. Unfortuantely I have yet to get it to compile without a few thousand error messages and I am st uck between a rock and a hard place. I know very little of Delphi programming, let a...

RAD Studio 2010 (Delphi, C++Builder, and Delphi Prism) Posted
All, The new roadmap for RAD Studio has been posted. Link: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/39934 Enjoy, Mike Michael Rozlog wrote: > All, > > The new roadmap for RAD Studio has been posted. > > Link: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/39934 > Thanks for the info, Mike. One thing I'm missing in the slides is the effort to bring the compiler into the C++ Standard compliance (lamda/closures, auto/decltype, etc.) I hope it's just an omission! :) Il Tue, 11 May 2010 09:01:04 -0700, Alex Bakaev <a@b.cc> ha scritto: >Than...

RAD Studio 2010 (Delphi, C++Builder, and Delphi Prism) Posted
All, The new roadmap for RAD Studio has been posted. Link: http://edn.embarcadero.com/article/39934 Enjoy, Mike "Michael Rozlog" <michael.rozlog@embarcadero.com> wrote in message news:241286@forums.embarcadero.com... > The new roadmap for RAD Studio has been posted. We have to wait all the way until Commodore to get better documentation? And until Chromium to get OTA documentation? -- Remy Lebeau (TeamB) On 10.05.2010 23:50, Michael Rozlog wrote: > All, > > The new roadmap for RAD Studio has been posted. > > Link: http://e...

Best practice when code should still compile with elder versions of Delphi but also Delphi 2009
When tryung to compile Turbopower Orpheus and other Turbopower products which I still use in my applications and therefor need to convert to Delphi 2009, I get lots of warnings even though others has made it possible to get Orpheus compiled. The problem is checking a char in a set which gives a type cast warning and suggests using a new function instead. [DCC Warning] ovcdbnum.pas(401): W1050 WideChar reduced to byte char in set expressions. Consider using 'CharInSet' function in 'SysUtils' unit. So what would be the best practice here eg. correcting this ro...

SEPA components for Delphi with Source Code (Delphi 5
Hi all, in the european union change next year the Bankingformat to the SEPA Format. All peoples and companies must change the bankingssoftware and the costumer data form acountnummers in the new IBAN and BIC numbers. See: http://www.arma-it.de/shop/artikelueber.php?wgruppeid=211&wgruppe_offen=211 Functions: - generate SEPA XML'S - Calc IBAN - BIC Database (DE,AT and CH) Questions: vertrieb@arma-it.de PS: Bankinssoftware for Develpoers (Germany only) http://www.arma-it.de/shop/artikelueber.php?wgruppeid=212&wgruppe_offen=212 El 26/10/13 21:38, A...

Delphi 2007 to Delphi 7
I've written a class in Delphi 2007 that is not supported in Delphi 7. What would be the best way to achive what I've done in Delphi 2007 in Delphi 7? Thanks, Tom type BondConstants = class { Bond Types } type BondType = record const TREASURY = 3; AGENCY = 0; CORP = 1; MUNI = 2; SBA = 5; MBS = 4; CMO = 6; end; { Day Count Methods } type DayCount = record const ACTUAL_360 = 2; ACTUAL_365 = 1; ACTUAL_ACTUAL = 1; d30_360 = 0; ...

Delphi 4 to Delphi 2007
Hello, I will have to port a D4 application (with source) to D2007. what kind of problem could I face ? I will have to go to customer site tommorow to analyse its source code to quote the work, what should I care of to hestimate the porting time ? Thanks John Terry wrote: > Hello, > I will have to port a D4 application (with source) to D2007. > what kind of problem could I face ? > I will have to go to customer site tommorow to analyse its source code > to quote the work, what should I care of to hestimate the porting time ? You can probably do it by just changi...

Delphi 7 to Delphi XE
Have been using Delphi 7 for many moons ( have got later versions but never upgraded to ) My first problem is: Component Palette. in XE it is a small toolbar docked in top right in Delphi 7 it gives a large view of all the components. I am struggling to be able to cope/access my components.in Delphi XE. Can I make the component pallette tool bar the same size as Delphi 7, or is there a fast way to view/choose all available components in XE, that I have not spotted yet? Kind Regards, Robert. Hi, What I know is that in Delphi 2010 and XE you can choose between t...

Delphi 5 to Delphi XE4
Thinking about making the conversion. Of course we have numerous components such as: TurboPower AsyncPro, TurboPower Orpheus ICS2 Synactis All-In-The-Box. You guys have any advice as to the effort and time it may possibly take. It is a large application, several hundred thousand lines. And that's what happens when using third party components, a lot of extra work. I have been burned a few times. I now minimize the use to a few well known suppliers, like TMS. I have "banned" a lot of other components. Regards, Ole > > Thinking about making the conver...

Delphi for PHP or Delphi PRISM
Hi, I have the opportunity to develop a web-based library management system. Nothing fancy, just being able to do the usual CRUD stuff for books and provide a search facility. Borrowing is to be done via an email request to the library admin who then sends out the book(s). Since both Delphi for PHP and Delphi PRISM will enable me to develop the app, which one will allow me to deliver it in less time and also increase (even how small) my marketability as a web developer? Thanks. Phillip Flores Phillip Flores wrote: > Hi, > > I have the opportunity to develop a...

Delphi XE / Delphi 2010
Hello! I noticed that Embarcadero® Delphi® 2010 Version is not on the list of products on Embarcadero page. Or is it still possible to buy it? Will RAD Studio XE compile programs written in Delphi 2010 without problems.? Thanks. Am 13.09.2010 09:04, schrieb Petra Nemec: > Will RAD Studio XE compile programs written in Delphi 2010 without problems.? As always you will probably have to recreate the projects as the import is still a bit -- special. Christian Hello! Does anybody know if it is still possible to get a Delphi2010 trial version (if yes where)? ...

Delphi 5 to Delphi 6 and up
Dear List, Trying to add 7Zip compression support to my delphi application. I am using the ported 7Zip sdk (see their website, they have a link). I am stumped on how to rewrite a single function: function ReverseDecode(var Models: array of SmallInt; ....): ..... where the input is mostly a fixed size array of SmallInt. This code perfectly compiles and functions in Delphi 6 and up, but in Delphi 5 I get the error: There is no overloaded version of 'ReverseDecode' that can be called with these arguments And obviously, the input (fixed) isn't the same as the param de...

Web resources about - Delphi version survey - Results Posted - embarcadero.delphi.non-tech

Authorized King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelis Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally ...

Clive Palmer isn't singing the blues, it's a pretty ragged version of Jingle Bells
Clive Palmer might have needed a little Christmas cheer after a week that has left his corporate reputation in tatters. We have just the tonic: ...

Review: Can the BrydgeMini keyboard for the iPad mini live up to the full size version?
... end, becoming my daily driver for my iPad Air 2. Brydge has two models for the smaller iPad, one for the iPad mini 1/2/3 and a second version ...

Apple seeds the first beta version of iOS 9.2.1 to registered developers
A little more than a week after introducing iOS 9.2 to the general public , Apple has just seeded the first beta version of iOS 9.2.1. to registered ...

2017 Mercedes-Benz SLC features AMG version with turbo V6
Filed under: Mercedes-Benz , Convertible , Luxury As part of the revamp of the entire Mercedes-Benz lineup, a heavily revised 2017 Mercedes-Benz ...

Most Android devices run an outdated OS version
More than 80 percent of Android devices are running an outdated version of the operating system. Those are the results of an inquiry among users ...

‘Doom’ creators made a PC version of Super Mario Bros. 3 in 1990, here’s what it looked like
Though the original Super Mario Bros. is arguably the most iconic video game ever released, Super Mario Bros. 3 remains a classic in its own ...

Titus Andronicus announce tour with Craig Finn, release "Grandma-friendly" version of "Fired Up" for ...
photo: Patrick Stickles at Webster Hall earlier this month (more by Amanda Hatfield) Titus Andronicus have announced a 2016 tour in continued ...

Microsoft is making a custom version of Windows 10 for the Chinese government
Microsoft is working with the Chinese government to make a custom version of Windows 10, according to a blog post . The software will be used ...

Silly Goat Version of Christmas Carols Raises Awareness for Serious Cause
Action Aid Sweden put together a full album of goat christmas carols to raise awareness for goat's important role in helping those who live in ...

Resources last updated: 12/18/2015 8:28:10 AM