WISH-LIST: What's missing in Delphi (mostly in IDE) [Edit]

Here are things that you MUST add to Delphi 2010:

== Undo ==========================================
The "Undo" function in the Form Designer is a feature that we are awaiting for, what... not more than 14 years. Since 2009 is still the start of the 21st century, there's no need to hurry. Adding  "Undo" by the end of this century would be a desired long-term goal, since it's so damn complicated to implement it.

== Method Ordering ===============================
When I click Shift+Ctrl+C the class methods are automatically declared in the code. That's fantastic! What's NOT so fantastic is that they aren't in the order I wrote them, but in alphabetical order. I spend lots of time grouping methods by functionality and I expect the implementation to be in the same order.

== Method Declaration ============================
Why not implementing an inverse class definition? That means, I write a method, press a combination of keys and voila - the method is added to the class declaration. Because sometimes is easier to write methods first, then declare them.

== Importing/Exporting Options ===================
There should be an option to export IDE Options to a file. It's a pain in the back to declare all the settings from scratch each time I reinstall Delphi. Also waiting for this only about 14 years...

== Eye-Catching Controls =========================
Just when I thought you finally made a set of modern controls (Office 2007 style), I read that I have to sign some bloody agreement with Microsoft to use them!?!?! Can't belive it. What, I have to give them my firstborn?
If you don't know how to write beautiful controls yourself (without needing a permission from Microsoft) please hire some Bulgarian or Polish or Russian or Lithuanian or whatever programmer that would do it for you. It won't cost you much and the quality is going to be probably higher than Microsoft's. Just offer him a regular salary, still much lower than in the U.S. Most of the beautiful controls for Delphi are already made by those people anyway. We need better, good-looking, royalty free controls in t
he next version of Delphi. I'm not giving my firstborn to Microsoft!!

== Better Conditional Defines ====================
We all know what pain in the bottom is writing code that works under different versions of Delphi.
Please, do something to make it easier. This construction should work:
{$DEFINE PROGRAM_VERSION = 2.1}
{$IFDEF PROGRAM_VERSION > 1.9} ...compile this code...

== Error Tracing =================================
There should be a built-in system for tracing/logging program execution at run-time. We need our customers to send us log files when our programs fail miserably. If you don't consider adding execution logging then at least add preprocessor macros like __LINE__  ,  __FN__  and  __FILE__ so we can implement it ourselves.

== Code Completion ===============================
It's a well known fact that Code Completion frequently fails because it's linked to the compiler. Can't you make some workaround or a separate system for parsing that doesn't involve compiling? In Visual Studio code completion works without problems.

Well, that's all from me for now. I'm not criticizing because I hate Delphi, I'm criticizing because I love it. Cheers!
Edited by: Marko Marulic on Feb 14, 2009 9:13 AM
0
Marko
2/14/2009 5:14:00 PM
📁 embarcadero.delphi.ide
📃 3925 articles.
⭐ 0 followers.

💬 26 Replies
👁️‍🗨️ 1451 Views


It is interesting that in BC5.02, more then ten years old tool from Borland, there was IDE config file and tracing program execution at run-time. Funny, isn't it? 
So, there are MS controls in new RAD2009? I didn't know that. LOL
0
Toncic
2/14/2009 5:49:05 PM
Toncic Linardic wrote:
> So, there are MS controls in new RAD2009? I didn't know that. LOL
TButton, TComboBox, TEdit, TToolBar, ... ;-)

But he referes to the Ribbon component that you can only use in your
applications if you accept Microsoft license. And if his "Bulgarian or
Polish or Russian or Lithuanian or whatever programmer" would write it,
you still would have to accept the license. Otherwise Microsoft can
take legal actions against you.

-- 
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
0
Andreas
2/14/2009 6:11:25 PM
Marko Marulic wrote:
> == Method Declaration ============================
> Why not implementing an inverse class definition? That means, I write
> a method, press a combination of keys and voila - the method is added
> to the class declaration. Because sometimes is easier to write
> methods first, then declare them.
Ctrl+Shift+C already does this. It's called Class Completion not
"Implementation only Class Completion"

> == Eye-Catching Controls =========================
> Just when I thought you finally made a set of modern controls (Office
> 2007 style), I read that I have to sign some bloody agreement with
> Microsoft to use them!?!?! Can't belive it. What, I have to give them
> my firstborn?
If you want a Ribbon control on your application you must accept the
license. If you don't use the Ribbon control, you don't have to sell
your firstborn.

> == Better Conditional Defines ====================
> We all know what pain in the bottom is writing code that works under
> different versions of Delphi.  Please, do something to make it
> easier. This construction should work:  
> {$DEFINE PROGRAM_VERSION = 2.1}
> {$IFDEF PROGRAM_VERSION > 1.9} ...compile this code...
You can already use this:
const
  ProgramVersion = 2.1;
{$IF ProgramVersion > 1.9}
....
{$IFEND}

-- 
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
0
Andreas
2/14/2009 6:14:30 PM
> == Method Ordering ===============================
> When I click Shift+Ctrl+C the class methods are automatically declared in the code. That's fantastic! What's NOT so fantastic is that they aren't in the order I wrote them, but in alphabetical order. I spend lots of time grouping methods by functionality and I expect the implementation to be in the same order.
> 
I like them alphabetical.  Maybe we need an infinitely long list of 
personal preferences. :-)
John
0
jtred
2/14/2009 6:24:17 PM
> {quote:title=Andreas Hausladen wrote:}{quote}
> Toncic Linardic wrote:
> 
> > So, there are MS controls in new RAD2009? I didn't know that. LOL
> 
> TButton, TComboBox, TEdit, TToolBar, ... ;-)
> 
> 
> But he referes to the Ribbon component that you can only use in your
> applications if you accept Microsoft license. And if his "Bulgarian or
> Polish or Russian or Lithuanian or whatever programmer" would write it,
> you still would have to accept the license. Otherwise Microsoft can
> take legal actions against you.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Andreas Hausladen
But if CG write it's own code to works like MS ribboon components, is there still licence obligation?
I don't beleive, but who knows. Is that licence for idea or for component?
0
Toncic
2/14/2009 6:44:13 PM
Toncic Linardic wrote:
> But if CG write it's own code to works like MS ribboon components, is there still licence obligation?
> I don't beleive, but who knows. Is that licence for idea or for component?
M$ is attempting to copyright/patent the concept, not the implementation. This 
flies in the face of traditional practice in the US where you can create 
software with extremely similar look&feel and functionality, as long as you 
implement it your own way.
It would be interesting to hear if anyone is challenging them on this. It would 
be quite costly for an individual to attempt it! I would think that it would be 
possible, seeing how radical a departure it is from copyright law as it has 
pertained to intellectual property over the past couple decades.
Loren sZendre
0
Loren
2/14/2009 7:05:02 PM
Anyone remember Apple & M$ fighting about this sort of issue - Look & Feel?
Roy Lambert
0
Roy
2/15/2009 1:34:45 PM
John

I could get to like alpha ordering if there was a "tidy up all those procedures and functions Roy's put in the wrong place" option <g>
Roy Lambert
0
Roy
2/15/2009 1:34:46 PM
I would like to have the "Find declaration" in the IDE popup menu 
alway's enabled. Now it disappeares when you debug the program, makes it 
hard to find the class.
0
Marius
2/15/2009 2:24:50 PM
> Just when I thought you finally made a set of modern controls (Office
> 2007 style), I read that I have to sign some bloody agreement with
> Microsoft to use them!?!?! Can't belive it. What, I have to give them
> my firstborn?
> 
> If you don't know how to write beautiful controls yourself (without
> needing a permission from Microsoft) please hire some Bulgarian or
> Polish or Russian or Lithuanian or whatever programmer that would do
> it for you. It won't cost you much and the quality is going to be
> probably higher than Microsoft's. 
You are misinformed - it is not the ribbon *implementation* that is
licenced, but the ribbon *concept* - MS provides no code whatsoever.
0
Chris
2/15/2009 5:31:14 PM
Roy Lambert wrote:
> John
> 
> 
> I could get to like alpha ordering if there was a "tidy up all those procedures and functions Roy's put in the wrong place" option <g>
> 
> Roy Lambert
Ah yes, the elusive "Do what I want even if I don't know I want it until 
after you did it" algorithm. :-)
John
0
jtred
2/15/2009 6:55:45 PM
John Treder wrote:
>> == Method Ordering ===============================
>> When I click Shift+Ctrl+C the class methods are automatically declared in the code. That's fantastic! What's NOT so fantastic is that they aren't in the order I wrote them, but in alphabetical order. I spend lots of time grouping methods by functionality and I expect the implementation to be in the same order.
>>
> 
> I like them alphabetical.  Maybe we need an infinitely long list of 
> personal preferences. :-)
> 
> John
Now were talking about it <g> Alphabetically except constructor and 
destructor (easier for navigation with ctrl-shift arrows)
0
Marius
2/15/2009 9:05:22 PM
> {quote:title=Chris Rolliston wrote:}{quote}
> You are misinformed - it is not the ribbon *implementation* that is
> licenced, but the ribbon *concept* - MS provides no code whatsoever.
Is there any other design concept in programming world protected by licence? 
I didn't know that it is possible to have a licence for component concept.
0
Toncic
2/16/2009 6:19:41 AM
Hello,
> {quote:title=Marko Marulic wrote:}{quote}
>
> == Undo ==========================================
> The "Undo" function in the Form Designer is a feature that we are awaiting for, what... not more than 14 years. Since 2009 is still the start of the 21st century, there's no need to hurry. Adding  "Undo" by the end of this century would be a desired long-term goal, since it's so damn complicated to implement it.
agreed.

> == Code Completion ===============================
> It's a well known fact that Code Completion frequently fails because it's linked to the compiler. Can't you make some workaround or a separate system for parsing that doesn't involve compiling? In Visual Studio code completion works without problems.
An additional parser would probably degrade the accuracy of Code Completion to the level of Error Insight.
As it turns out, the Visual C++ team is about to switch its IntelliSense feature from a parser-based to a compiler-based solution (http://blogs.msdn.com/vcblog/archive/2009/01/27/dev10-is-just-the-beginning.aspx) for exactly the same reason: accuracy.
--
Moritz
"Hey, it compiles! Ship it!"
0
Moritz
2/16/2009 8:01:37 AM
Roy Lambert wrote:
> Anyone remember Apple & M$ fighting about this sort of issue - Look &
> Feel?
Yes, MS lost.  Lotus lost against Borland.  I guess it is cheaper to
capitulate.
-- 
Iman
0
Iman
2/16/2009 2:55:20 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear enough. It doesn't have to be an exact copy of ribbon controls. They aren't a big miracle anyway. I've seen better looking controls in some shareware programs much before "ribbons" appeared.
What I meant is that CG should hire somebody to write a set of visually attractive controls, or at least toolbars, buttons and TPanel-descendants, so that Delphi programs can stand out when compared to Visual Studio programs. If CG plans to wait for Microsoft to release new set of (unofficial) controls, then RAD Studio is going to be one step behind Visual Studio, permanently. 
Since ordinary Delphi programmers can make really beautiful controls, some even freeware, we can only imagine what they can do if somebody offers them a regular salary. I'm sure it would cost CG less than some of the royalties they have to pay.
In fact, CG could open a competition for the best looking set of controls (that work in real conditions) and reward the winner with some prize or a job position. Just one suggestion. Possibilities are endless. When there's a will, there's a way.

> {quote:title=Andreas Hausladen wrote:}{quote}
> Toncic Linardic wrote:
> 
> > So, there are MS controls in new RAD2009? I didn't know that. LOL
> 
> TButton, TComboBox, TEdit, TToolBar, ... ;-)
> 
> 
> But he referes to the Ribbon component that you can only use in your
> applications if you accept Microsoft license. And if his "Bulgarian or
> Polish or Russian or Lithuanian or whatever programmer" would write it,
> you still would have to accept the license. Otherwise Microsoft can
> take legal actions against you.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Andreas Hausladen
0
Marko
2/17/2009 3:38:32 AM
> {quote:title=Andreas Hausladen wrote:}{quote}
> Marko Marulic wrote:
> 
> > == Method Declaration ============================
> > Why not implementing an inverse class definition? That means, I write
> > a method, press a combination of keys and voila - the method is added
> > to the class declaration. Because sometimes is easier to write
> > methods first, then declare them.
> 
> Ctrl+Shift+C already does this. It's called Class Completion not
> "Implementation only Class Completion"

Yep, seems it works. Although again, it's not the reflection of the implementation order. Sorting methods alphabetically actually required more work than just leaving them at the place they were found. Which means no programming is required to implement unsorted order. Just don't call sort. An option in the Options dialog. Checked for sort, not checked for skip sort. 

 
> > == Eye-Catching Controls =========================
> > Just when I thought you finally made a set of modern controls (Office
> > 2007 style), I read that I have to sign some bloody agreement with
> > Microsoft to use them!?!?! Can't belive it. What, I have to give them
> > my firstborn?
> 
> If you want a Ribbon control on your application you must accept the
> license. If you don't use the Ribbon control, you don't have to sell
> your firstborn.

Well, I'd like to use some nice controls, because visual appearance is important in everything, including software. Since RAD Studio offers me just Microsoft's patented controls, I have no option but to use those. Ribbon controls aren't a big step forward, probably even a step backwards because everything looks cluttered. But they do look different, and have nice colors. Customers like such things. They would equally like another set of controls with nice colors. Anything that doesn't look like Windows pl
ain-vanilla GUI. It's up to CG to see if they can hire somebody to offer something equally (or preferably more) attractive.
 
 
> > == Better Conditional Defines ====================
> > We all know what pain in the bottom is writing code that works under
> > different versions of Delphi.  Please, do something to make it
> > easier. This construction should work:  
> > {$DEFINE PROGRAM_VERSION = 2.1}
> > {$IFDEF PROGRAM_VERSION > 1.9} ...compile this code...
> 
> You can already use this:
> 
> const
>   ProgramVersion = 2.1;
> 
> {$IF ProgramVersion > 1.9}
> ...
> {$IFEND}

Nice. It works. Weird that in various pascal sources that I came across on the Net nobody uses these directives for version checking. It would be interesting to know from which version of Delphi were they introduced.

> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Andreas Hausladen
0
Marko
2/17/2009 4:13:59 AM
Marko Marulic wrote:
> Yep, seems it works. Although again, it's not the reflection of the implementation order. Sorting methods alphabetically actually required more work than just leaving them at the place they were found. Which means no programming is required to implement unsorted order. Just don't call sort. An option in the Options dialog. Checked for sort, not checked for skip sort. 
Exactly! I've asked for the option to have the old D7 way for years. It doesn't 
take any real work! Just give me the option to turn it off. It would be 
marginally acceptable to have a registry setting to change, but it really ought 
to be an IDE option.
Loren sZendre
0
Loren
2/17/2009 4:50:56 AM
Toncic
>> {quote:title=Chris Rolliston wrote:}{quote}
>> You are misinformed - it is not the ribbon *implementation* that is
>> licenced, but the ribbon *concept* - MS provides no code whatsoever.
>
>Is there any other design concept in programming world protected by licence?
>I didn't know that it is possible to have a licence for component concept.
It probably isn't (look back at Apple & M$ disputes) but do you have the money to argue with M$?
Roy Lambert
0
Roy
2/17/2009 6:22:58 AM
> Nice. It works. Weird that in various pascal sources that I came across on the Net nobody uses these directives for version checking. It would be interesting to know from which version of Delphi were they introduced.
Maybe because the source code you found predates Delphi 6 or has to support Delphi 5 (like the JCL/JVCL).

-- 
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
0
Andreas
2/17/2009 11:49:10 AM
> {quote:title=Marko Marulic wrote:}{quote}
> Here are things that you MUST add to Delphi 2010:
Nobody MUST add anything. You're free to offer suggestions, of course, but not demands. Nobody listens to demands. The very fact that you're DEMANDING usually makes people stop listening completely, and disregard anything that trickles through anyway. :-)
> == Undo ==========================================
> The "Undo" function in the Form Designer is a feature that we are awaiting for, what... not more than 14 years. Since 2009 is still the start of the 21st century, there's no need to hurry. Adding  "Undo" by the end of this century would be a desired long-term goal, since it's so damn complicated to implement it.
> 
So what? It would be nice if it was there, but I've never once found myself really unhappy that it's not. I mean, I'm intelligent enough to save the form at points where I wouldn't like to see things lost, and if I decide to make changes I then don't want I just close the form without saving changes and reopen it again to get back to where I was before. If I've absolutely made a wreck somehow, I just discard all the changes and revert to the last saved copy of the form in my SVN repository and start over.
 No big deal.
CG: By all means, when you run out of important things to do in the compiler, VCL, RTL, and IDE, please feel free to spend some time implementing undo in the Form Designer. *When you run out of important things to do*, I think that would be a great idea. :-)
 
> == Method Ordering ===============================
> When I click Shift+Ctrl+C the class methods are automatically declared in the code. That's fantastic! What's NOT so fantastic is that they aren't in the order I wrote them, but in alphabetical order. I spend lots of time grouping methods by functionality and I expect the implementation to be in the same order.
> 
Maybe instead of ranting about the order of the class methods, you should spend less time grouping by functionality and more time just writing code, and use Ctrl+Shift+UpArrow or Ctrl+Shift+DownArrow to navigate between the interface and implementation. Then it wouldn't matter so much what order they're in.
Besides, if you know what they're called, what difference does it make anyway? If you're looking for your SaveChanges() function, does it matter where it's located? Just F3 and type "function SaveC" and hit Enter to get to the first match. You'll be in the interface section, and then Ctrl+Shift+DownArrow to get to the implementation. So what if in the interface section SaveChanges() is between PutAddress() and SortData() instead of UndoChanges() and MyUberFunction() where you want it?
(Or, better yet, both GExperts and Castalia (and others, I'm sure) provide addins to the IDE that include a procedure listing; Castalia's goes in a small panel right at the top of the Code Editor. When I need to find a method in my code, or even a stand-alone function in a utility unit, I just choose it from the alphabetical list at the top of the Editor. It's really, really quick, and searchable by any part of the method name.)
> == Method Declaration ============================
> Why not implementing an inverse class definition? That means, I write a method, press a combination of keys and voila - the method is added to the class declaration. Because sometimes is easier to write methods first, then declare them.
> 
It's there. Same Ctrl+Shift+C. The only thing you have to watch out for is that, when you start out writing the procedure in the implementation section and then use the key combo to add it to the interface, Delphi puts it in the private declarations and that may not be where you wanted it. It's a little annoying, for example, when you're in a form and decide you need a new function or procedure in a data module. You change to the DM, type the implementation of the method, hit Ctrl+Shift+C to add the inter
face declaration, change back to your form, and call the new method, and get an unresolved procedure error. You then have to switch back to the DM, go to the interface declaration (Ctrl+Shift+UpArrow), select the entire line, Ctrl+X to cut, DownArrow to the public or published section, Ctrl+V to paste, and then back to the form unit and compile.
 
> == Importing/Exporting Options ===================
> There should be an option to export IDE Options to a file. It's a pain in the back to declare all the settings from scratch each time I reinstall Delphi. Also waiting for this only about 14 years...
> 
There is. It's called RegEdit. Start->Run->RegEdit->Enter. Navigate to HKLM\Software\CodeGear\BDS\<YourVersion>. Use File->Export, and save the file as "BDS<Ver>HKLM.reg". Repeat the process to export HKCU\Software\CodeGear\BDS\<YourVer> as "BDS<Ver>HKLU.reg". On your new machine, install Delphi and the components you use from third parties in the same locations they were on the old machine. Double-click on each of the above .REG files to import them into the registry. If you've copied all the old stuff c
orrectly to the new machine, you should be able to start Delphi and have all your third party stuff and your configuration changes there. If not, you missed something when you copied your stuff from the old to new machine.
Gee... I'll bet you could even write a quick utility in Delphi that did all of that stuff for you.
> == Eye-Catching Controls =========================
> Just when I thought you finally made a set of modern controls (Office 2007 style), I read that I have to sign some bloody agreement with Microsoft to use them!?!?! Can't belive it. What, I have to give them my firstborn?
>
Because MS holds the patent and they say so. Not CodeGear. So, if you have a beef about the agreement *with Microsoft*, why are you ranting about it anywhere *other than at Microsoft*. 
Gee! My State Governor is raising taxes. I think I'll go yell at the President of France! Yeah! That makes as much sense.
If you have a problem with MS, talk to them about it.
 
> If you don't know how to write beautiful controls yourself (without needing a permission from Microsoft) please hire some Bulgarian or Polish or Russian or Lithuanian or whatever programmer that would do it for you. It won't cost you much and the quality is going to be probably higher than Microsoft's. Just offer him a regular salary, still much lower than in the U.S. Most of the beautiful controls for Delphi are already made by those people anyway. We need better, good-looking, royalty free controls in
 the next version of Delphi. I'm not giving my firstborn to Microsoft!!
> 
Wah. Wah. Need a tissue? And what a racist remark, anyway. "Those people"? "a regular salary, still much lower than in the U.S."? Show a little class (and respect), please.
> == Better Conditional Defines ====================
> We all know what pain in the bottom is writing code that works under different versions of Delphi.
> Please, do something to make it easier. This construction should work:
That's already available. You can use RTL_VERSION, which tells you the version of the runtime library is available. You can also use VER_<XXX>, where <XXX> is a three digit number that tells you what compiler version is available. See JEDI.INC, included (pun intended) with the Jedi VCL and Jedi Code Library to make code compatible with various versions of Delphi, C++ Builder, and Free Pascal. And trust me; with the versions they're supporting, and the functionality they're providing, they're doing a lot m
ore version-specific stuff than you ever will.
> == Error Tracing =================================
> There should be a built-in system for tracing/logging program execution at run-time. We need our customers to send us log files when our programs fail miserably. If you don't consider adding execution logging then at least add preprocessor macros like __LINE__  ,  __FN__  and  __FILE__ so we can implement it ourselves.
> 
You can. Use assertions.
IIRC, inserting _FILE_ and _LINE_ is done in C/C++ by a preprocessor. Since Delphi doesn't use one, it can't do that easily. If you have problem areas of your code you need to identify by file and line, assertions will provide you that information, or you can alter your code and use $DEFINE/$IFDEF to surround those alterations so they're only there when you need them, and not in production code when you don't.
> == Code Completion ===============================
> It's a well known fact that Code Completion frequently fails because it's linked to the compiler. Can't you make some workaround or a separate system for parsing that doesn't involve compiling? In Visual Studio code completion works without problems.
> 
It's not linked to the compiler. It uses its own parser, and therefore is already a separate system. And Code Completion doesn't frequently fail; in fact, I don't remember it ever failing once, unless you count not going away occasionally if you keep typing and don't actually make a selection "failing". I don't. I just call that a minor (but not unbearable) annoyance.
0
Ken
2/17/2009 6:30:08 PM
Roy Lambert wrote:
> Toncic
> 
> >> {quote:title=Chris Rolliston wrote:}{quote}
> >> You are misinformed - it is not the ribbon implementation that is
> >> licenced, but the ribbon concept - MS provides no code whatsoever.
> > 
> > Is there any other design concept in programming world protected by
> > licence?  I didn't know that it is possible to have a licence for
> > component concept.
> 
> It probably isn't (look back at Apple & M$ disputes) but do you have
> the money to argue with M$?
A countries legal system is in a sad state when whether you get right
depends on the amount of money available instead of  objective facts...
-- 
Peter Below (TeamB)  
Don't be a vampire (http://slash7.com/pages/vampires), 
use the newsgroup archives :
http://www.tamaracka.com/search.htm
http://groups.google.com
0
Peter
2/17/2009 6:36:29 PM
>I could get to like alpha ordering if there was a "tidy up all those procedures and functions Roy's put in the wrong place" option <g>
And also tidy up after renaming a method. Or reording the declaration
methods as well.
For me right now, it's not 100% consistent.
cu Christian
0
Christian
2/17/2009 6:37:08 PM
> Well, I'd like to use some nice controls, because visual appearance is 
> important in everything, including software. Since RAD Studio offers me 
> just Microsoft's patented controls, I have no option but to use those. 
> Ribbon controls aren't a big step forward, probably even a step backwards 
> because everything looks cluttered. But they do look different, and have 
> nice colors. Customers like such things. They would equally like another 
> set of controls with nice colors. Anything that doesn't look like Windows 
> plain-vanilla GUI. It's up to CG to see if they can hire somebody to offer 
> something equally (or preferably more) attractive.
It is the glyphs used for buttons etc which make an app look 'attractive',
and it is really up to you, as a developer, to source your own glyphs.
Codegear cannot be expected to provide an infinite series of glyphs
and icons which fit every task. And we can't all use the same glyphs,
otherwise every app would look identical to Office!
You can already use effects like hotlighting in the VCL, but
creating all the different image lists required is a real pain - this
is what you have to do if you want 'modern'-looking apps.
I'm just happy with apps that work!
cheers,
Chris
0
Chris
2/17/2009 9:06:38 PM
> {quote:title=Chris Morgan wrote:}{quote}
> > Well, I'd like to use some nice controls, because visual appearance is 
> > important in everything, including software. Since RAD Studio offers me 
> > just Microsoft's patented controls, I have no option but to use those. 
> > Ribbon controls aren't a big step forward, probably even a step backwards 
> > because everything looks cluttered. But they do look different, and have 
> > nice colors. Customers like such things. They would equally like another 
> > set of controls with nice colors. Anything that doesn't look like Windows 
> > plain-vanilla GUI. It's up to CG to see if they can hire somebody to offer 
> > something equally (or preferably more) attractive.
> 
> It is the glyphs used for buttons etc which make an app look 'attractive',
> and it is really up to you, as a developer, to source your own glyphs.
> Codegear cannot be expected to provide an infinite series of glyphs
> and icons which fit every task. And we can't all use the same glyphs,
> otherwise every app would look identical to Office!
> 
> You can already use effects like hotlighting in the VCL, but
> creating all the different image lists required is a real pain - this
> is what you have to do if you want 'modern'-looking apps.
> I'm just happy with apps that work!
> 
> cheers,
> 
> Chris

No, buttons aren't glyphs. Try putting the same glyph on a Delphi 3 button and on a Delphi 2009 button and they'll be completely different. Then try with the ribbon control, using the same glyph. Completely different. 
Thanks to the kind (and very talented) people from the Linux community there are lots of fantastic png images to use on buttons, released under LGPL license. But buttons are much more than just glyphs. And GUI isn't just buttons.
0
Marko
2/18/2009 4:45:05 AM
> 
> So what? It would be nice if it was there, but I've never once found myself really unhappy that it's not. I mean, I'm intelligent enough to save the form at points where I wouldn't like to see things lost, and if I decide to make changes I then don't want I just close the form without saving changes and reopen it again to get back to where I was before. If I've absolutely made a wreck somehow, I just discard all the changes and revert to the last saved copy of the form in my SVN repository and start ove
r. No big deal.
> 
> > == Importing/Exporting Options ===================
> > There should be an option to export IDE Options to a file. It's a pain in the back to declare all the settings from scratch each time I reinstall Delphi. Also waiting for this only about 14 years...
> > 
> 
> There is. It's called RegEdit. Start->Run->RegEdit->Enter. Navigate to HKLM\Software\CodeGear\BDS\<YourVersion>. Use File->Export, and save the file as "BDS<Ver>HKLM.reg". Repeat the process to export HKCU\Software\CodeGear\BDS\<YourVer> as "BDS<Ver>HKLU.reg". On your new machine, install Delphi and the components you use from third parties in the same locations they were on the old machine. Double-click on each of the above .REG files to import them into the registry. If you've copied all the old stuff
 correctly to the new machine, you should be able to start Delphi and have all your third party stuff and your configuration changes there. If not, you missed something when you copied your stuff from the old to new machine.
> 


Thanks for your suggestions. I bet your car doesn't have wipers, because after all, you can emulate them by stopping the car, taking a sponge, going out of the car, wiping the windshield and getting back in the car. Wipers are for spoiled brats.
Edited by: Marko Marulic on Feb 20, 2009 7:08 PM
0
Marko
2/21/2009 3:09:56 AM
Reply: