| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Peter von Gaza
Guest
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 5:26 pm Post subject: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
 |
|
CBX has me very, very worried. I am just a little guy that has been
developing using the various incarnations of BCB and my programs are very
tied to VCL. Now I am releasing that my commitment to the underdog -
BORLAND - may end up costing me big. Having followed the threads on CBX and
it's FUTURE possibilities, I am more concerned that ever. If Borland does
not come up with a very clear policy of backward support for VCL then there
is absolutely no way that I will take the chance and develop with their new
product. Why would I?? The thought of having to reprogram all my dialogs
that have developed over years makes chills run down my spine!
Not being that knowledgeable about compilers and such I've been hoping that
Borland would have announced something like BCB7 with AMD 64 bit support. Oh
GOD that would have been sweet! That is what I need right NOW! 64 bit is
coming and I want recompile my program NOW and get it out. But instead I'm
having to look at alternatives and starting to think that I will never tie
myself to a proprietary IDE again. I am going to loose months in
reprogramming. Open source here I come?? Borland is pulling a microsoft
IMHO and is going to push many of us (probably all the little guys) to open
source - RAD tools be damned! At least I was lucky enough to program all my
non-dialog code in ANSI C++.
So, someone, why would I even consider remaining with Borland? Why be loyal?
Probably another thread, but what is out their that would be a reasonable
set of tools for developing 64-bit c++ programs with decent dialog support?
gcc and wxWindows? Java?????????
Peter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Agricola
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 6:11 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
"Peter von Gaza" wrote:
| Quote: | CBX has me very, very worried. I am just a little guy that has been
developing using the various incarnations of BCB and my programs are very
tied to VCL. Now I am releasing that my commitment to the underdog -
BORLAND - may end up costing me big. Having followed the threads on CBX
and
it's FUTURE possibilities, I am more concerned that ever.
|
It is because of the threads? Not because of the Open Letters? Then there is
hope!
| Quote: | If Borland does
not come up with a very clear policy of backward support for VCL then
there
is absolutely no way that I will take the chance and develop with their
new
product. Why would I?? The thought of having to reprogram all my dialogs
that have developed over years makes chills run down my spine!
|
Wait for the second letter. There is already a migration path promissed to
..NET by VCL for .NET.
| Quote: | Not being that knowledgeable about compilers and such I've been hoping
that
Borland would have announced something like BCB7 with AMD 64 bit support.
Oh
GOD that would have been sweet! That is what I need right NOW!
|
All your customers are already switched to 64bit hardware? Tell them they
can still run Windows, untill Microsoft releases their 64bit OS for AMD64.
Is it more coming than .NET?
| Quote: | and I want recompile my program NOW and get it out. But instead I'm
having to look at alternatives and starting to think that I will never tie
myself to a proprietary IDE again. I am going to loose months in
reprogramming. Open source here I come??
|
Have you considered wxWindows, an open source GUI-framework as alternative
for VCL? Or do you want to go the not .NET route?
| Quote: | Borland is pulling a microsoft
IMHO and is going to push many of us (probably all the little guys) to
open
source - RAD tools be damned! At least I was lucky enough to program all
my
non-dialog code in ANSI C++.
|
Very clever. Porting to wxWindows won't hurt you much. especially not when
Borland releases a from designer for it.
| Quote: | So, someone, why would I even consider remaining with Borland? Why be
loyal? |
This has nothing to do with loyality. If you want to go the .NET route,
Borland will probably give you the best migration path for your existing
code. If you want to go the other route Borland will probably give you the
best migration path for your existing code.
| Quote: | Probably another thread, but what is out their that would be a reasonable
set of tools for developing 64-bit c++ programs with decent dialog
support?
gcc and wxWindows? Java?????????
|
I think Java will never be the best tool for developing 64bit C++ programs.
Peter
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Remy Lebeau (TeamB)
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 9:17 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
"Peter von Gaza" <pvg (AT) yt (DOT) sympatico.ca> wrote
| Quote: | Not being that knowledgeable about compilers and such I've been
hoping that Borland would have announced something like BCB7
with AMD 64 bit support. Oh GOD that would have been sweet!
That is what I need right NOW! 64 bit is coming and I want
recompile my program NOW and get it out.
|
Write to Borland at [email]cpp_open_letter (AT) borland (DOT) com[/email] and tell them exactly that.
| Quote: | So, someone, why would I even consider remaining with Borland? Why be
loyal? |
Because you are jumping the gun too soon. If you really had read all of the
threads, then you would have known that CBX v1.0 was not targetting the VCL
community, that will come in the next release in a few months. In the
meantime, there is nothing to stop you from continuing to use BCB for
existing projects. As for 64-bit support, I don't know.
Gambit
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB)
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2003 10:12 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
"Remy Lebeau (TeamB)" <gambit47.no.spam (AT) no (DOT) spam.yahoo.com> writes:
| Quote: | Because you are jumping the gun too soon. If you really had read
all of the threads, then you would have known that CBX v1.0 was not
targetting the VCL community, that will come in the next release in
a few months. In the meantime, there is nothing to stop you from
continuing to use BCB for existing projects. As for 64-bit support,
I don't know.
|
Borland is shipping Intel's C++ compiler with CBX (in addition to
their own compiler). Since Intel makes a really good 64-bit compiler,
this will be a way to use Borland's IDE, and all the rest of the cross
platform stuff, and their new RAD framework (when released) for a
64-bit environment if they don't release a 64-bit compiler
themselves. (Which is probably unlikely unless the 64-bit market
picks up.)
--
Chris (TeamB);
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andreas Prucha
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:21 am Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) <chris (AT) uzdavinis (DOT) com> wrote in
news:j5brrmfr2e.fsf (AT) explicit (DOT) atdesk.com:
| Quote: | Borland is shipping Intel's C++ compiler with CBX (in addition to
their own compiler). Since Intel makes a really good 64-bit compiler,
this will be a way to use Borland's IDE, and all the rest of the cross
platform stuff, and their new RAD framework (when released) for a
64-bit environment if they don't release a 64-bit compiler
themselves. (Which is probably unlikely unless the 64-bit market
picks up.)
|
A few month ago I thought that it will take quite a while to see 64 bit
on the desktop. Now I think that we will see 64 bit on the desktop quite
soon. But I'd rather bet on the AMD64-processors, not on Intel. The AMD-
chips are cheaper, and perform much better in 32bit-mode than the Intel-
64-bit processors. However, the incompatibility between the upcomming 64
bit processors is IMO one problem for the compiler-companies.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
Chris Uzdavinis (TeamB) wrote:
| Quote: | Borland is shipping Intel's C++ compiler with CBX (in addition to
their own compiler). Since Intel makes a really good 64-bit compiler,
|
Dubious if the Intel compiler will support the "other" 64-bit platform
though. AFAIK, 64bit on Windows will also be only available via .NET .
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Rybenkov
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2003 11:12 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
| Quote: | The AMD-chips are cheaper
|
That's very very argueable. They are cheaper in the same way as ink-printers
are cheaper than laser ones.
--
Andrew Rybenkov.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Marcelo R. Lopez, Jr.
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 6:36 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
How ? Since when did you have to buy Ink cartridges to power your CPU ?
"Andrew Rybenkov" <arybenkov (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | The AMD-chips are cheaper
That's very very argueable. They are cheaper in the same way as
ink-printers
are cheaper than laser ones.
--
Andrew Rybenkov.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Agricola
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:16 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
You forgot the smiley I suppose?
Peter
"Marcelo R. Lopez, Jr." wrote:
| Quote: | How ? Since when did you have to buy Ink cartridges to power your CPU ?
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mr_organic
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:05 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
Randall Parker <STOPtechiepundit (AT) EVILfuturePOXpunditSPAM (DOT) com> wrote in
news:3faffb80 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com:
| Quote: | Peter,
Do you have an app that needs a 64 bit address space? None of my apps
do. I realise there are a few apps that do. But I doubt that 99.9% of
the client apps now being written have any need for a 64 bit address
space.
SNIP
|
I remember this same argument on the 8-bit to 16-bit transition, and in the
16-bit to 32-bit transition. Trust me: you need it, whether you know it or
not. Especially if you work with big databases or large media files.
mr_organic
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randall Parker
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 8:55 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
Peter,
Do you have an app that needs a 64 bit address space? None of my apps
do. I realise there are a few apps that do. But I doubt that 99.9% of
the client apps now being written have any need for a 64 bit address space.
Peter von Gaza wrote:
| Quote: | Not being that knowledgeable about compilers and such I've been hoping that
Borland would have announced something like BCB7 with AMD 64 bit support. Oh
GOD that would have been sweet! That is what I need right NOW! 64 bit is
coming and I want recompile my program NOW and get it out.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Karl Ruetz
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2003 9:30 pm Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
"Randall Parker" <STOPtechiepundit (AT) EVILfuturePOXpunditSPAM (DOT) com> wrote in
message news:3faffb80 (AT) newsgroups (DOT) borland.com...
| Quote: | Peter,
Do you have an app that needs a 64 bit address space? None of my apps
do. I realise there are a few apps that do. But I doubt that 99.9% of
the client apps now being written have any need for a 64 bit address
space. |
My company uses very large local databases, this makes 64 bit addressing a
must for us.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randall Parker
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 1:23 am Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
Not too many of us are going to shell out the money it takes to buy an
Itanium box. Whereas AMD 64 bit chips are quite affordable for desktop
use. Whether Itaniums are faster or not is besides the point. They cost
a lot more.
Also, since most of the apps we run are 32 bit and likely to remain so
for a few years the need to recompile to get the additional performance
of the Itanium makes paying the higher price for Itanium pointless for
many desktop uses.
So AMD really does look like a better way to get 64 bit performance on
the desktop for the vast majority of users.
Andrew Rybenkov wrote:
| Quote: | The AMD-chips are cheaper
That's very very argueable. They are cheaper in the same way as ink-printers
are cheaper than laser ones.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andrew Rybenkov
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 5:32 am Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
| Quote: | How ? Since when did you have to buy Ink cartridges to power your CPU ?
|
You need electricity to power your CPU, and AMDs consume it much more.
--
Andrew Rybenkov.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Bellingham
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 11:34 am Post subject: Re: 64-bit programming strategy. CBX??? |
|
|
"Andrew Rybenkov" <arybenkov (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:
| Quote: | How ? Since when did you have to buy Ink cartridges to power your CPU ?
You need electricity to power your CPU, and AMDs consume it much more.
|
Interesting. The Itanium seems to want about 130W (but I couldn't
actually find figures on Intel's site). The Opteron apparently 85W.
I'm not saying that the Itanium is a bad chip - it is probably better
than the Opteron for some tasks, and it may even be better on a
computing-power-per-Watt basis for some tasks. For the moment, though, I
think I'd prefer to go with the Opteron if I needed 64-bit stuff.
Or did you meant that AMDs consume more electricity because more are
being used?
(Factoid - Google claim they consume more electricity than some small
countries, and they apparently decided against using the Itanium on the
grounds it uses too much power.)
Alan Bellingham
--
Team Mongolian Wok
<url:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/> Borland newsgroup descriptions
<url:http://www.borland.com/newsgroups/netiquette.html> netiquette
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
