Talk:Delphi (software)

LINKS

Why were all the Delphi related links removed? Could they not be consolidated? Useful information that was removed for apparently no reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.216.70.62 (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I put some external links back. Why are people destroying the links? User:wpostma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.196.86 (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Disadvantages

The reference to the inconvenience of strong typing seems to miss the fundamental reasons for it within the definition of Pascal. Pascal is a "bondage and discipline" language, strong typing is a major strength. Steveastrouk 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologise if I put the wrong thing there, but I fail to see how that can be the case. If I'm writing a program, I want to translate concept into reality as quickly as possible. Anything that gets in the way of that will hinder productivity, right? And this is a bad thing. I'm always open to new ideas and assume no right to have the 'last word' here though. In fact I'm really interested as to your viewpoint, and why you would say this extra weight on the programmer is a good thing. Please, expand your reasoning so I get where you're coming from. Once we are agreed as to the correct course of action, we can then move forward. --Targ Collective (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I've programmed in several languages, and believe me, strong type checking helps you tremendously in the long run. You don't have to spend nearly so much time tracking down hard-to-find bugs. Bubba73 (talk), 05:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I can see that. I prefer not to be encumbered myself by such things, but then I'm not prone to making mistakes that much when I'm coding - with me it's more likely to be a misspelled variable than anything else! So it seems, like so many things, this is subjective, which makes a final decision quite hard to reach. What is true is that while an inconvenience to some, forcing the programmer into declaring types helps a substantial number of people create bug-free code, which is of course a good thing.

Trouble with this concept is, it won't fit into an advantages/disadvantages framework. This means said framework must be changed, and as a relative newcomer here I'd prefer to leave that to people with a better idea what they're doing.--Targ Collective (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It is what is called Strongly-typed programming language. It is designed that way, and it is a good thing. Bubba73 (talk), 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong assertion! Remember, not every language is strongly typed, and those which are not still work. So clearly they have their merits too. Wikipedia's supposed to be neutral, y'know, and flat statements like that aren't in the spirit of neutrality. Not that I'm arguing with you, understand, as I'm sure strong typing has its merits too. Matter of fact, I'm using Delphi at present. Speaking as a programmer, however, who previously used a language with implicit type conversions, I miss the functionality and find it slows me down; so, I drew on my experiences and tried to improve the article. Again, I apologise if I did the wrong thing; all the same I must ask you to support your argument if you're trying to reach consensus. Thanks for your patience.--Targ Collective (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of programming languages has a table showing which have strong typing and which don't. Also see Type system and Type safety. Bubba73 (talk), 14:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've already looked at these pages, but they don't clarify the issue for me. I'm probably missing something obvious (wouldn't be the first time)... To clarify, I'm pointing at one particular quirk of the Delphi compiler as opposed to the philosophy of strong typing. My argument is, having StrToInt and IntToStr commands makes the issue of processing numeric user input slightly more onerous than neccessarily needs be the case. Could you give me an example of where the intelligent typing I describe could lead to an error? Naturally a compiler should throw a wobbly if you try to divide spoons by mountains, say, (unless for some reason you're in need ascii-based maths) but where Price contains the string 100 and VAT contains the string 7.5 the compiler should be able to tell that in Price*VAT these are being treated as numbers, not strings, and behave accordingly. Not to do so would be on a par with assuming ascii-based maths all the time.

Delphi does not do this, which is why I have listed it as a disadvantage... strong typing so far as it helps the programmer is great, but I see this as blindly following the philosophy irrespective of context. But then I doubt I have your experience in these matters. I know I'm being a bit of a pain here, but would you mind having another crack at getting me to see where you're coming from?

Ah, had another look. What I'm referring to is dynamic typing, and I have a relevant quote from Type system which seems to encapsulate my point perfectly. "The advantages of dynamic data typing can include more flexibility and quicker development for the programmer. But programmers from a static and manifestly typed language background are used to using data type declarations to help in organizing and understanding a program, and this prop is lost." If this is the bone of contention then, as I suspected, this is a subjective issue; therefore I feel I should contest your removal of the disadvantage I listed. The lack of dynamic typing is slowing me down. I think that I made the point poorly, however, as I should have borne in mind some programmers use data type declarations in organisation... As subjective as it is, this probably won't be resolved by a simple 'snip'. Both points of view should be represented.--Targ Collective (talk) 15:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Static versus dynamic typing is discussed in Type system, in particular the section Type system#Static and dynamic type checking in practice. Static checking catches errors early, so I don't think that having it instead of dynamic is a disadvanyage. Bubba73 (talk), 18:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a certain irony here. Throughout I've been chasing an ideal of unhindered programming through adding a bit of dynamism to what I view is unneccessarily strong typing, while you've been chasing an ideal of unhindered programming through enhanced bug catching. Thanks for taking the time to talk me through your viewpoint, I can really see where you're coming from now.

That this is under dispute between 'opposing camps', in an amicable sort of way, is directly relevant to classing Advantages and Disadvantages, which has caused me to shift my position slightly. I'm no longer of the opinion that classing advantages and disadvantages so open to interpretation in the article is the right course at all - instead readers must be allowed to make up their own minds on this. It means more work, as the whole list will need to be re-examined. Either that or the entire article will (as the banner asks) require re-writing as prose. I'm happy to do the latter myself if you'll be willing to wait a few weeks, although I'd probably be the wrong person for it.

You're a pretty respected person around here, Bubba73. Without falling into a partisan position, what would you advise as the best course?--Targ Collective (talk) 09:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

For now I just have a brief comment. If you look at the table at Comparison of programming languages, almost all of the languages that are commonly used for production code use strong, static type checking. They are designed that way on purpose. Bubba73 (talk), 16:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Its not easy to explain the runtime problems languages like C caused programmers to face to someone without 25 year's programming experience. The bugs still being found deep within the heart of Windows are at least in part a throwback to lack of strong typing in C. Strong typing caught many of these at compile time, which was a real help. Try imagine not having an integrated debugging environment, just a plain editor. And having to look up in a book all the functions a library has. And your program runs fine, but crashes on another machine, because somewhere in your code, a long overwrites a char on passing a parameter. How will you ever find out what's going on? The Automatic type conversion referred to above meant the compiler (strictly speaking the interpreter) had to check and convert every variable at run time. This was viable only when processors got faster and memory cheaper. And it was fine for private little utilities, but a real performance hog if you were trying to write commercial grade software or operating systems. Over the years, Turbo Pascal/Delphi's strictness has loosened considerably, whilst on the other side, C++ introduced stronger typing and the designers of Visual Basic saw the need to introduce the "strict" directive. In C#, both sides have found a middle ground, but the advances in live debugging, intelligent help, cursor-popup variable information and all the other tools modern IDEs play a large role in reducing the usefulness of strong typing. Nowdays, the programmer can see what's going on in the code to an extent we could only have dreamed of back then. The only residual "disadvantage" remaining in Delphi today (my opinion) is the quaint need to declare all variables in a "var" block at the top of a procedure. This is a nuisance, esp. when it is a long procedure (constant scrolling). Being able to declare a variable directly where you need it is better. But to say the typing in Delphi today is significantly stronger than, say, C#, is not correct.213.173.165.130 (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The item about "a reluctance to break any code" makes little sense. Someone who understands this item and how it is unique to Delphi should re-state it to be understandable to non-programmers or it should be removed.

Although I was a professional developer of Borland Delphi, the "reluctance to break any code" makes absolutely no sense to me. Delphi has a lot of disadvantages which are not listed (in addition to a significant more lot of advantages which are not listed as well) but I don't recognize any of them as "the reluctance to break any code". Fleet Command 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

RE: "reluctance to break any code" - They could be talking about backward compatablity issues and Borland not wanting to break previous version (Delphi 3,4,5,6) user source code by implementing new or revised language statements in newer versions (Delphi 2006, 2007)? Just a suggestion, I don't know for sure. Wam067 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

RE: "newer versions of Delphi have suffered from a number of stability issues." - Which versions? What kind of stability issues? Please give some details. I have had some self-inflicted stability issues related to memory management and BDE db dll's but never the fault of the Delphi language itself. I have used Delphi 3, 5, and 7 and use it for development of all sorts of client-server db apps and have never seen this program have stability issues that were not my own fault (and fixable for that matter). I do have to admit that I have not used the latest versions. Wam067 02:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The Delphi 2005 IDE had problems such as access violations that shouldn't be there and locking up sometimes if you terminated the program while running. Delphi 2006 seems to have fixed that, but it often has a problem if you have it open and then run another program and go back to it - it might show nothing but the top bit and you have to close and restart. I don't have D2007. Bubba73 (talk), 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Delphi 2005 was a bitch - there were two "official" service packs, and then an unofficial community patch to fix the last service pack ! Steveastrouk 21:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: I agree - "a reluctance to break any code" makes no sense to me either - and I use Delphi. 58.107.50.212 11:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, I thought just about everyone tried to keep from breaking existing code when a new version comes out. Bubba73 (talk), 18:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This section says "... orthogonality and predictability have suffered. " What does "orthogonality" mean in this context? Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I was about to leave my comments about "A reluctance to break any code", but here we are, its being discussed already :) Yes completely agree, it is nonsence. For me it translates to backward compatibility and upon rephrazing should go to Advantages section :) Regarding BDS 3.0 (aka Delphi 205) - it is shame and disgrace of Borland, most awful quality product they ever sold. I'd prefer to not dispute it at all as its nearly impossible to develop anything but disgust with such limp tool (sorry, still feeling the pain :) Re: "strongly-typed language" as opposed to loosely-typed languages (besides variant types, ofcourse) - as basic Pascal language specific its hardly an advantage of Delphi in particular. 85.141.206.142 (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

History

Isn't the current last pp a rather blatant ad? - Jon Shemitz 08:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I tried to rewrite it. Futurix 08:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It says under September 6, 2006: "Unlike earlier Personal editions of Delphi, new Explorer editions can be used for commercial development.". What it fails to mention is that you can't use third party add-ons or extensions, as I found to my cost when trying to use the free comport add on. You can use comport with Delphi 7 personal edition.Dieselnutjob (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Product list

I've re-included HeidiSQL. It was removed by Futurix as being an ad, but it hardly is - the paragraph is after all named "products developed with Delphi", which HeidiSQL fits nicely. There doesn't seem to be any official lower limit on the amount of users a product needs to have, but with 500 daily downloads on SourceForge (see project statistics), I doubt that HeidiSQL falls far behind other listed products such as eg. FuturixImager. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.242.183.118 (talk • contribs)

Paragraph is about "well-known" software, and number of downloads is not considered as guideline for popularity (even so - from current data I see that it has about 200 downloads daily for the latest release, which frankly seems to be quite low). Futurix 23:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Product list 2

Although I don't propose this be the exclusive measure used by any means, I suggest that if an product doesn't have a wikipedia page it probably isn't notable enough to be listed here (and, at any rate, it isn't useful to list it). -- Steven Fisher 16:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.56.98 (talk • contribs)

"I disagree" isn't enough argument for a revert. I suggest you create pages for the products and use that as a notability test. If the pages survive, it'll make sense to add them back. -- Steven Fisher 14:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You have removed Inno Setup, TopStyle Pro, Beyond Compare, FastStone Image Viewer - all are leading products in corresponding areas. Since all of them are quite popular, it is probable that they will have pages of their own pretty soon (most of them also mentioned in other thematic articles, like installers for InnoSetup and comparison of image viewers for FastStone). Restored them back plus restored back some products that had pages in Wikipedia (but were still removed). Futurix 08:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Also presense of Wikipedia article is a criteria for popularity is quite superficial (I think). Futurix 08:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did no such thing. I removed two articles, both of which were added by the same user, who claimed they were "very famous and expensive" and immediately reverted. -- Steven Fisher 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops, you're right, I deleted more than I remembered. -- Steven Fisher 14:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem ;-) Futurix 14:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If you know something about these products, could you create a stub article for a couple of them? Or maybe even just describe them with a sentence here. When I deleted the red links, I was thinking they didn't really add anything to this article unless you already know the products. -- Steven Fisher 14:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I can write short descriptions for each of them. Would this be good enough? Or may be it will be better to group them?

Like

Development tools: Dev-C++ (IDE), Help & Manual (software manual authoring), InnoSetup (installer)

Web browsers: Avant Browser, Netcaptor

Newsgroup readers: XanaNews, Xnews

etc... Futurix 15:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of descriptions, but I think your grouping idea is even better. -- Steven Fisher 17:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Done :-) Futurix 08:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed statement

I removed this about Virtual Pascall

Nevertheless, of the free alternatives, it is still the one with the best polished IDE and debugger though Free Pascal is getting close.

It may very well be true but it's unsourced Nil Einne 18:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

CodeGear

Borland has spun off it's IDE tools group into CodeGear.

Should the article be renamed CodeGear Delphi or perhaps better Borland / CodeGear Delphi? AbstractClass 04:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Not until Delphi is available as CodeGear Delphi. --Steven Fisher 17:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Delphi 2007 was released as CodeGear Delphi 2007 for Win32. Should we create a second page named CodeGear Delphi and link here e.g.? Tsool 10:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I say leave it to be for now. After all, people know it as Borland Delphi or just Delphi. Besides, Borland has once changed name to Inprise and then again back to Borland. Who knows what may happen to CodeGear. If you want, change the Delphi Disambiguation Page. Fleet Command 13:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why not rename it something ambiguous such as Delphi_Programming or Delphi_IDE so that the issue is not encountered in the future?

--Dc2005silk (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "ambiguous"? :-) How about "Delphi (programming language)" or "Delphi (programming)" ? Bubba73 (talk), 22:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It says "For the first time Delphi could be downloaded from the Internet and activated with a license key." This can't be true because I downloaded Delphi 7 personal edition from the Borland website a few years ago, and activitated it with a code that they emailed to me.Dieselnutjob (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Features / versions?

Would it be applicable to have a section that went through the different versions and mentioned the features that were added with each release? This information is something that seems pertinent -- showing the growth of Delphi -- and does not seem to have been collected anywhere else on the web. Unfortunately, I do not have enough experience with Delphi to even begin something like this, but I'd be extremely interested in reading it. Kdring (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was there no mention of delphi 7? No matter, I've added it. User:wpostma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.214.196.86 (talk) 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Name

The history about the name is somewhat inaccurate. Though Danny may have chosen the name, it was the name of a field test beta (following "mango", I think). The Delphi release was so functional and so close to a releasable product (and "AppBuilder" sucked so much), that field testers requested that the name "Delphi" remain.

The source for this version of the story is my own experience, but there are dozens of "AppBuilder" testers that can validate it.

--Juanco (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to "CodeGear Delphi"?

Since CodeGear has been sold to Embarcadero, Delphi is no longer a Borland product in any way, shape or form. Hence, the title of this article is now inaccurate. I propose moving it to "CodeGear Delphi" but I'd like to see if there are dissenting opinions before doing so. --Craig Stuntz (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What about changing the name to match the actual product, RAD Studio? Perhaps this article should be split into two, one for the RAD Studio IDE, and another cross-linked page for the Delphi component (as well as a link to a C++Builder page). The Delphi page could contain the Delphi .Net information, or that could be separated onto yet another page (since it appears the two languages may diverge more in the future). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.167.5 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I like the name "CodeGear Delphi". Dr93241 (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

According to (CG) discussion thread about the most suitable and stable new name for the Delphi article, the name "CodeGear Delphi" seems to have good support, and it would be supported also by the owning company (even though the comany name is different, which is an important point). This fact is significant since it would ensure that the name "CodeGear Delphi" would be stable over time. I think it's very clear that "CodeGear Delphi" is the best new name and that the article should be moved as soon as possible (preferrably by trusted Craig Stuntz), and that other titles, like "Delphi IDE", "Delphi (programming tool)" etc can be added as redirects to help people find the article. // Rolf Lampa (RIL-sv (talk) 17:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

CodeGear Delphi is fine with me. The only other sensible choice is Delphi (integrated development environment), which is a bit iffy. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

To find out if there is a wiki standard I checked Eclipse and Visual Studio. The first is named Eclipse_(software). The second one Microsoft_Visual_Studio. Delphi_(software) is still available and so is CodeGear Delphi. Janderk (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Delphi (software) is ambiguous because Object Pascal is often referred to as "Delphi". "Microsoft Visual Studio" is a registered trademark. There's no direct analogy here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

External link suggestion

Somewhere in the Wikipedia guidelines I saw "External links should be suggested in the article's talk page", so... suggested external link...

Tutorials and "How To"s for Delphi programmers http://sheepdogguides.com/tut.htm

I didn't see anything about how the suggestion proceeds to becoming a link...

Tkbwik (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another move/renaming?

Since the name "CodeGear Delphi" is obsolete now, this article should be moved again! I would strongly suggest to choose a durable name like Delphi (software development environment) this time. Paladin75 (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Kylix blurb

Having owned a copy of Kylix, what I have written was from direct experience at the time of purchasing the software. Linux was still for uber-geeks (and Kylix was really a step above a teaching language, appealing to the same market as the VB crowd), being Pascal-based. Borland hurt themselves when they decided to base Kylix on the WINE libraries, the same mentality that Corel used to base their Wordperfect Office 2000 for Linux suite on WINE. It was, and remains a very lame set of libraries to base any serious project on. Wordperfect was at its best when it was based on glibc (remember those days); and Kylix would have been infinitely more stable had it been based on that instead of WINE. This, combined with the slow adoption of Linux, as mentioned, caused sales of Kylix to go south. Paul E J King (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Inprise

Though the introduction claims it was once called by this name, the history section mentions nothing about it. -109.67.201.158 (talk) 16:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

File:Delphi in action.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Delphi in action.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Shareware??

Delphi is a commercial product. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:20, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Is Delphi not a shareware or trialware?

First, the definition of shareware:

The term shareware (also known as trialware or demoware) refers to proprietary software that is provided to users without payment on a trial basis and is often limited by any combination of functionality, availability, or convenience. Shareware is often offered as a download from an Internet website or as a compact disc included with a periodical such as a newspaper or magazine. The rationale behind shareware is to give buyers the opportunity to use the program and judge its usefulness before purchasing a license for the full version of the software. — Shareware

Well, correct me if I am wrong but according to this source, Delphi matches the definition above and is therefore a trialware, demoware or shareware (whichever you prefer). Fleet Command (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That is only a 30-day free trial of a commercial product. It does not fit the definition of shareware or the others. See this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

From shareware: "The term shareware is used in contrast to retail software, which refers to commercial software available only with the purchase of a license which may not be copied for others..." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 21:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

You are being ambiguous. What are you talking about? Explain yourself. Fleet Command (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The use of Delphi past the free trial period requires the purchase of a license and it may not be copied for others. Therefore it is retail software and not shareware. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:45, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? That is the case with every single piece of trialware; trialware can only be used for a limited time (= trial). No single piece of trialware is available after the trial is expired. If it was available indefinitely, then it would become a freeware or freemium, not shareware. Retail software is the one that you purchase without having a chance to test it. In the future, please try to get you facts right first. Fleet Command (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

The Shareware article says that trialware is the same as shareware. I think the most accurate description for Delphi is "commercial software with a 30-day free trial". How about that? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a short word for "commercial software with a 30-day free trial". That's "trialware". I don't really understand your aversion of the word. Your reasoning seems in favor of my position and your definition comes from the same article (Shareware) either; except you disagree instead of agreeing. You say Delphi cannot be copied to others. Well, I just did that! (Only he needs a separate serial number to use it permanently.) And I also do not understand what makes you think a "trialware" is non-commercial. The whole point of the try before you buy scheme is the buy part.

Perhaps you should consider a moment or two and then start paraphrasing your position (unless you are satisfied by my arguments). Fleet Command (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

If any Commercial software that have a Trial Version is trialware then Visual Studio should change its definition because MS is offering a trial version also at http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us/try — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.81.5.185 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Good call. I will change Visual Studio's too. Fleet Command (talk) 04:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Delphi XE2: x86-64 and 10 bytes Extended float type

With new Win64 target, only 4- and 8-bytes (single and double) are supported. Extended type is dropped. It seems that x86-64 compiler issues SSE2 code for floating point (SSE2 does not have 10-bytes precision). So the question appears, does x86-64 Long Mode completely dropped support for x87 code, or was it just Embarcadero cut the corners and bypassed x87 code generation even if only for Extended type ? 79.111.218.128 (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)