Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 16 to 23 of 23

Thread: delphi registratie zonder subscription

  1. #16
    "Align with industry standards." Dan mag de prijs ook wel wat meer standaard zijn. Delphi is duur, en daarvoor mag je die courtecy ook wel verwachten..

    We zitten voorlopig nog wel aan Delphi vast, maar m'n enthousiasme om er privé me te werken heeft recent al wat deukjes opgelopen, en dit maakt het er niet beter op.

    Poorten naar FPC zal voor een dikke kantoorapplicatie niet zo eenvoudig zijn..
    1+1=b

  2. #17
    mov rax,marcov; push rax marcov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Ehv, Nl
    Posts
    9,934
    Quote Originally Posted by Kim Bo Madsen View Post
    Do we have yet another "Delphi is dead" panic attack ? It must be the 278th or so since 1995.

    Im in contact with Atanas and Marco about the situation. They have bumped the registration number for all existing licenses.
    That buys me two years, not more. I think I need about three years to (part time) port the core codebases to C++. I have a very large % processing code that is fairly easy to port. GUI will be harder (since I don't know MFC at all)

    Im however also critical about not providing a perpetual license that does not require Embarcadero involvement, before stopping providing license support for old versions.
    Exactly. It doesn't exactly inspire trust that it will all work out, having an perpetual license turned into a subscription blackmail.

    More annoying is that newer versions of Delphi hardly add anything for me (no multiplatform, no firemonkey), so the subscription money is nearly for nothing else than to keep my existing version running. The featurelist since say XE7 is underwhelming to say the least.

    However it is really nothing new... many companies move towards subscription based access to development tools these days... which Im not too happy about myself either.
    They often do have a sensible alternative SKU though, free or cheap.

    kbmMW did support Lazarus in an older version (3.xx). However FPC and Lazarus have for a longish time had issues about keeping up with being feature compatible with Delphi, which makes it a nightmare to support both Lazarus/FPC and Delphi/C++Builder.
    Not really, don't overuse new features :-) You do that on yourself.

    Some of the issues related to getting to Delphi compatibility is that the "powers in being" have own ideas and opinions about directions to take, which may be technically correct, but which do not help with moving 3rdparty vendors support towards Lazarus/FPC.
    There are no powers that be only volunteers. Of those only Sven works on compatibility language features (and that even under protest). The foundation did the pas2js stuff but that is mostly also externally sponsored. Most contributors don't use Delphi.

    IOW we have the same problem as you, people wanting stuff, but being dependent on others to realize it.

    FPC 3.2 does come with a basic generics.collections (and there are versions for 3.0.4 too, which are fine for basic container use), and also interface RTTI has been improved. That will be in a release for hopefully today.

    Some external contributors are working on attributes/rtti, but progress (and communication/status) is very low. Don't expect much short term.

    The table formats of RTTI probably never will be fully compatible, only the procedural/class interface to it will be compatible. Reasons for this are in the multiplatform realm and general Embarcadero shortsightness.
    Last edited by marcov; 28-May-19 at 13:50.

  3. #18
    > Not really, don't overuse new features :-) You do that on yourself.

    Well If one wants to do advanced stuff, one often have to use new features, or sometimes push the existing features to the limit.
    I would however hardly call RTTI, or generics, or Attributes or anonymous functions new features. They technically work for me in Delphi since XE2 and all of it works fairly reliably since XE5'ish.

    >Of those only Sven works on compatibility language features (and that even under protest).

    The statement "under protest" imo pretty well describes the long running internal "battle" between implementing stuff one way or another.
    Historically the Delphi compatibility was the looser, which now to some extent bites 3rdparty vendors in the rear, and imo also the wide spread adoption of FreePascal/Lazarus.
    Only "lately" there have been an increased awareness about that from what I can see.

    >IOW we have the same problem as you, people wanting stuff, but being dependent on others to realize it.

    Yes, Im aware about the practical issues, with many people putting in lots of volunteer work. And from that standpoint, FPC and Lazarus are two impressive projects!

    >FPC 3.2 does come with a basic generics.collections (and there are versions for 3.0.4 too, which are fine for basic container use), and also interface RTTI has been improved. That will be in a release for hopefully today.

    That sounds great! It is a nice step toward being able to use kbmMW on Lazarus.

    >Some external contributors are working on attributes/rtti, but progress (and communication/status) is very low. Don't expect much short term.
    >The table formats of RTTI probably never will be fully compatible, only the procedural/class interface to it will be compatible.
    >Reasons for this are in the multiplatform realm and general Embarcadero shortsightness.

    Im quite happy with having compatible function access to it. I personally do not care much about if its implemented one way or another under the hood... But I do want to be able to get a list of attributes, define custom attributes etc. in the way we do today in Delphi. That would probably be the last true hurdle before being able to fully provide kbmMW on FPC/Lazarus.
    As some of you know, I have a fairly close relationship with the Blaise Pascal magazine which I have sponsored/adverticed in since almost day 1 and still do.
    And some of you may also know there are more involved relations between all the people making the magic happen. In all this I also hope to be able to live up to a personal commitment, enabling serious multitier for all to use.

  4. #19

    Update regarding legacy Delphi license concerns

    Hi,
    Just FYI, I have been in contact with Atanas, and I understand an update to the statement will come.

    For now the major change is that bumping licenses will happen thru their sales department rather than their service department.

    Obviously they would like people to move to newer Delphi versions, but from what I understand he agree that its a vital concern to be able to continue to use existing perpetual licenses without being forced to pay for service.
    For the user who received the email that was starting this discussion, I would suggest them to make contact to Atanas, as it (from how I interpret his intentions) was not supposed to be so black and white as the email made it look.

    best regards
    Kim/C4D

  5. #20
    That's good to hear!

  6. #21
    mov rax,marcov; push rax marcov's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Ehv, Nl
    Posts
    9,934
    Iemand hier nog iets over gehoord?

  7. #22
    Margreet van Barnsten zou gaan reageren... Zal morgen weer even contact opnemen.

  8. #23
    Atanas zou ook met een update op het statement komen. Stond nog niet op de roadmap denk ik.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •