flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

flat assembler > Heap > Delphi Community Edition - free download

Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
TmX



Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 820
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
Quote:

Embarcadero® Delphi 10.2 Tokyo Community Edition is a great way to get started building high-performance Delphi apps for Windows, mac OS, iOS, and Android. Delphi Community Edition includes a streamlined IDE, code editor, integrated debugger, two-way visual designers to speed development, hundreds of visual components, and a limited commercial use license.

https://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi/starter/free-download


Seems like Embarcadero decided to follow MS's footstep. A bit late, perhaps? Smile
Post 19 Jul 2018, 06:59
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8235
Location: ˛                              ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣ Posts: 6699
a great news,
i will try download it later if i connected to fast network, thanks
Post 19 Jul 2018, 07:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Tomasz Grysztar
Assembly Artist


Joined: 16 Jun 2003
Posts: 7289
Location: Kraków, Poland
TmX wrote:
A bit late, perhaps? Smile
These days everything seems like "a bit late". Wink
Post 19 Jul 2018, 07:47
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2335
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
Obligatory link to Free Pascal / Lazarus:

https://www.freepascal.org/
http://www.lazarus-ide.org/

Feel free to report bugs on what works in Delphi but doesn't in FPC (yet)!

https://bugs.freepascal.org/my_view_page.php
Post 11 Aug 2018, 23:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 532
Location: Belarus
rugxulo wrote:
Obligatory link to Free Pascal / Lazarus:

https://www.freepascal.org/
http://www.lazarus-ide.org/

Feel free to report bugs on what works in Delphi but doesn't in FPC (yet)!

https://bugs.freepascal.org/my_view_page.php

Used to have a very buggy IDE with poor debugging features near 2008, then, if I remember correctly, it dropped support for Win9x which was a bad thing for me back then. Have they rewritten the IDE since then?
Post 12 Aug 2018, 09:30
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2335
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
DimonSoft wrote:

Used to have a very buggy IDE with poor debugging features near 2008, then, if I remember correctly, it dropped support for Win9x which was a bad thing for me back then. Have they rewritten the IDE since then?


I love FPC, it's very good, but I don't claim to know or use every feature. In particular, I just thought it was somewhat strange to see a recommendation to use Delphi Starter (although I was aware of it but never tried) because of various restrictions and limitations (32-bit only?). Perhaps it's great for someone, I'm not denying that, but I think FPC should still be strongly considered if at all possible. (FPC is very robust and actually older than Delphi. Obviously it can build itself.)

AFAIK, FPC is very low on volunteers and developers, but they still do a majestic job of releases for many OSes and cpu arches. So I've heard that the TUI IDE was older code and somewhat unmaintained but gradually got better over time (since first 2.0.0 Delphi-focused release in 2005). The TUI IDE (FP.EXE) tries to mimic old Borland IDEs, so it (usually?) has compiler and GDB built-in for easier development. But honestly I never even use the IDE, only cmdline! And anyways, most people would probably recommend Lazarus' GUI IDE instead. I think Lazarus is considered quite stable these days.

A ton has changed and improved since 2008. But I'm sure you know that Win9x has been unsupported by MS since 2006. Even FPC dropped support for it a few years ago. They just don't have maintainers for it (despite more interest in Windows target than others, but their core devs mostly prefer Linux and other OSes more). I'm not even honestly sure if they guarantee XP support anymore (which MS dropped in 2014, obviously).

Just try it, and if it doesn't work somehow, file a bug. Especially for something that works correctly in Delphi since they are very vigilant in trying to keep up with that. They support various dialects, but clearly Delphi is the main one nowadays. Legacy "tp" / Turbo is still supported, thankfully, but most code, including the compiler itself, is Delphi-based. It used to be classic Delphi 7 [2003?] focused, but since a few years they've gone quite beyond that, too. I prefer other dialects, honestly, so I'm not sure exactly what else is still not supported. Delphi has had TONS of releases and added TONS of features! It's almost unfair to consider it Pascal at this point because they changed so much.

(Sorry for ramble.)
Post 13 Aug 2018, 19:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
DimonSoft



Joined: 03 Mar 2010
Posts: 532
Location: Belarus
rugxulo wrote:
A ton has changed and improved since 2008. But I'm sure you know that Win9x has been unsupported by MS since 2006. Even FPC dropped support for it a few years ago. They just don't have maintainers for it (despite more interest in Windows target than others, but their core devs mostly prefer Linux and other OSes more). I'm not even honestly sure if they guarantee XP support anymore (which MS dropped in 2014, obviously).

Just try it, and if it doesn't work somehow, file a bug. Especially for something that works correctly in Delphi since they are very vigilant in trying to keep up with that. They support various dialects, but clearly Delphi is the main one nowadays. Legacy "tp" / Turbo is still supported, thankfully, but most code, including the compiler itself, is Delphi-based. It used to be classic Delphi 7 [2003?] focused, but since a few years they've gone quite beyond that, too. I prefer other dialects, honestly, so I'm not sure exactly what else is still not supported. Delphi has had TONS of releases and added TONS of features! It's almost unfair to consider it Pascal at this point because they changed so much.

That’s what I find really funny: compile for MS-DOS but give up Win9x although most applications (those that do data moving here and there) do not require any new features introduced in NT. TrackMouseEvent might be the only feature that is not in the basic API of Win9x but even it is supported there, just from another system DLL.

And it’s not Delphi Starter. Community Edition is Professional version with the only difference that you should earn at most $5000 with it. It supports all the cross-platform stuff modern Delphi is proud of.
Post 13 Aug 2018, 19:38
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2335
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
DimonSoft wrote:

That’s what I find really funny: compile for MS-DOS but give up Win9x although most applications (those that do data moving here and there) do not require any new features introduced in NT.


DOS/Go32v2 lost its maintainer in 2003, and I don't think it's ever truly had one since then! It too almost died but was revived circa 2008 (barely), mostly thanks to volunteer work by Tomas (OS/2 dude) and Pierre (IDE and snapshots dude), with other bits by MarcoV (FreeBSD dude). While DOS stuff runs well on Win9x, it can't target Win32 APIs. Honestly, as a DOS fan, I'm the last to whine about Win9x being obsolete, but that ship has long sailed.

I honestly don't know the details. Something about having to be extremely careful not to accidentally rely on WinXP etc. APIs (which is harder to test for the few devs, plus documentation is harder to find since MS abandoned / deprecated it all). At least the internal linker helped them not pull in too much unnecessary stuff anymore, I think, which was a problem for a while.

DimonSoft wrote:

TrackMouseEvent might be the only feature that is not in the basic API of Win9x but even it is supported there, just from another system DLL.


They just couldn't do it anymore, or else they didn't find it worth their time. Like I said, there's more interest in Windows than other compiler targets, but their few devs are just volunteers (no one being paid full-time) and "mostly" prefer using other OSes.

DimonSoft wrote:

And it’s not Delphi Starter. Community Edition is Professional version with the only difference that you should earn at most $5000 with it. It supports all the cross-platform stuff modern Delphi is proud of.


The URL contains "/starter/", so I just assumed it was the same thing. Good for them if they've expanded their offerings. I'm not saying it's a bad product. I'm sure it's a godsend for some, but you just have to be careful about any potential restrictions.
Post 13 Aug 2018, 20:05
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2335
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
rugxulo wrote:
Honestly, as a DOS fan, I'm the last to whine about Win9x being obsolete, but that ship has long sailed.


Just FYI, in case you didn't know, FPC has officially supported i8086-msdos (16-bit) target for the first time in 3.0.0 (2015, thanks to Nikolai). But it's cross-compiler only, thus you need Linux or Win32 host to use it. Actually, you can run the Win32 cross-compiler (ppcross8086.exe) under Japheth's HX / HDPMI32 in DOS if you're careful. The 3.1.1 snapshots are still not finalized, so there is still no actual Go32v2 hosted version ("cross"-compiler from 32-bit DOS host to 16-bit DOS target) yet. Although they did some work in trunk by switching away from OpenWatcom's WLINK + WLIB + NASM (since it conflicted with DJGPP's cmdline passing proxy mechanism). So it has an internal assembler + (smart)linker there, too, nowadays, which should help a lot.

I've not looked (much) at that internally, and I don't think others have either. It would be nice to have a Go32v2-hosted version, but nobody's done it. In fact, I don't think the compiler itself will even build (at least not directly, easily, without patches) in DOS itself. Yet another problem. Yeah, everybody is too busy. We're just lucky anything still works. They're very diligent and go beyond the call of duty, though, so who can complain? Hey, maybe I should force myself to take a closer look again (ugh). But some things aren't as easy as they sound.
Post 13 Aug 2018, 20:17
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1421
rugxulo wrote:
I honestly don't know the details. Something about having to be extremely careful not to accidentally rely on WinXP etc. APIs (which is harder to test for the few devs, plus documentation is harder to find since MS abandoned / deprecated it all).
I always find the "harder to test" argument laughable, and so many insist on it in general. I mean, how hard can it be to boot a Virtual Machine with Win98 on it and test? Nothing but pure lies obviously.

"But it won't guarantee it's the same as on a real OS" well guess what, at least keep "Win98 VM compatibility" then rather than dropping it if testing was *really* the issue you had with it? Clearly they're just lying though, and I'm not picking them out specifically: a lot of morons think they can fool people with this PR speech especially from companies.
Post 14 Aug 2018, 12:07
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MarcoV



Joined: 28 Apr 2019
Posts: 4
Furs wrote:
]I always find the "harder to test" argument laughable, and so many insist on it in general. I mean, how hard can it be to boot a Virtual
Machine with Win98 on it and test? Nothing but pure lies obviously.


Extremely hard apparently, because exactly one user did bother to report any serious bugreport in the 5 years leading up to the decision. And he was sb who still had a win9x machine, so apparently never ever did what you suggest.

IOW: nobody used or tracked recent versions. This situation had been detoriating since 2005, with no hope on improvement.

Regularly features were found totally broken for win9x, and having been so for extended times. Moreover an increasing number of codepaths required extra work for win9x (e.g. to dynload calls and provided fallbacks if they didn't exist)

MSDN removed information for old targets, and a complete rewrite of string using parts of the RTL was planned to make the 3.0 series unicode aware. This means that every call would use the -W variant by default.

This would yield enormous amounts of codepaths that needed to be checked for win9x, and made but despite 100 suggestions about "just use MSLU" over the years, we didn't get one (!) bugreport detailing practicalities of such setup, despite asking several times.

This means that the whole trainwreck of win9x unicode support would fall on people that didn't have it and didn't care for it, and had already chipped in for years to keep things running. Several of them had meanwhile lost their win9x machines (and the installs on them) that had kept win9x on lifesupport.

Note that the choice was not to stop supporting Win9x, but to stop having an unified 32/64 windows target. (IOW splitting the windows port into win9x and WINNT targets)

There was an attempt to find maintainers for a win9x fork, but that was fruitless. A handful of people complained, half of them more out of principle than because they really needed/used win9x.

The other half was more of the "I still have a win9x machine stored in the attic, and I might get it out when I'm retired" kind. IOW not even providing bugreport if sb actually DID make an win9x effort

There was only one person somewhat serious (the same only person (Bart) who sometimes report win9x bugs in times before 3.0.0. He was not happy either, but couldn't manage the work, and understood the reasons.

So basically the whole win9x situation was dysfunctional, and had been for close to 10 years. Enough was enough. It was decided to split the win32/64 target into win9x and winnt targets, and to not require win9x fallback anymore for the continued windows(NT) port.

Quote:

"But it won't guarantee it's the same as on a real OS" well guess what, at least keep "Win98 VM compatibility" then rather than dropping it if testing was *really* the issue you had with it? Clearly they're just lying though, and I'm not picking them out specifically: a lot of morons think they can fool people with this PR speech especially from companies.


No corporations, FPC is a pure volunteer effort. This is why we have a 16-bit win3.x, wince (several versions, several processors) and winnt win32/64 port (x86/x86_64 only, though there was an Itanium hello world once). We have volunteers for those targets.

We couldn't get volunteers for Win9x, its users mostly only wanted a free ride and somebody to blame if something didn't work.

If you or somebody else is different just fork the winnt RTL and start hacking away. Please submit the patch at the above bugtracker (or ask on the maillists if you want help creating a "win9x" target in the compiler).

Or PM me at this forum. A lot is possible, but it is up to the target's users to actually DO something[/b]
Post 28 Apr 2019, 16:45
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
guignol



Joined: 06 Dec 2008
Posts: 541
Location: Did I forgot to take off the kettle again?
What is this, a moscow club of underfinencers?
Post 29 Apr 2019, 04:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MarcoV



Joined: 28 Apr 2019
Posts: 4
guignol wrote:
What is this, a moscow club of underfinencers?


Well, it is definitely not a spelling contest Smile
Post 29 Apr 2019, 16:51
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
rugxulo



Joined: 09 Aug 2005
Posts: 2335
Location: Usono (aka, USA)
Hi, MarcoV, welcome (much belated!).

Quote:

Today [8 June, 2018] FPC celebrates its 25th birthday !


FreeDOS also will turn 25 (on 29 June 2019; I already bought the shirt!).

A lot has changed in tech. Some good, some bad. But let's celebrate what works, what we've done. Let's be happy, if at all possible, that anything works!
Post 21 May 2019, 17:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
TmX



Joined: 02 Mar 2006
Posts: 820
Location: Jakarta, Indonesia
MarcoV wrote:
guignol wrote:
What is this, a moscow club of underfinencers?


Well, it is definitely not a spelling contest Smile


Marco from FPC core dev team, I assume? Smile
Post 23 May 2019, 14:16
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MarcoV



Joined: 28 Apr 2019
Posts: 4
TmX wrote:
MarcoV wrote:
guignol wrote:
What is this, a moscow club of underfinencers?


Well, it is definitely not a spelling contest Smile


Marco from FPC core dev team, I assume? Smile


I like to think I'm an independent spirit Smile

But yes, I'm core and the win9x decision was for a large part decided under my influence (I've been release manager for most releases after 2.2.0 except 3.0(.0), maintain the windows headers and I've also done some work in the unicodification of the 3.x RTL).

I didn't like it like the next guy, but after a few releases you get tired of begging people to have a look at the windows 9x status, and finding out that nobody has done anything since the last time you begged TWO YEARS before(and worse, bitrot has progressed since then).

Though I subscribed to the forum because I have some AVX work to do for my (Delphi) job. Since Delphi doesn't support AVX2, this needs to be done with other tools. This Delphi/FPC thread is just a bonus Smile
Post 27 May 2019, 21:04
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2019, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.