Lazarus
Miscellaneous => Suggestions => IDE/CodeTools => Topic started by: lyh1 on July 06, 2010, 09:47:26 pm
-
Just found that there is a VS like IDE call monodevelop, and seems it is not for .net only.
Lazarus/FPC have many overlaping with it, so I start a topic here to discuss.
http://monodevelop.com/
-
No. Monodevelop exists since 2003.
I don't know if anybody is using it.
-
I've tried both MonoDevelop & its parent SharpDevelop. They cater to the .NET community's demand for opensource, crossplatform (MonoDevelop only) tools. They both require the presence of the .NET runtime & optionally the .NET SDK to work. That was the dealbreaker for me! >:( Their component sets are also extremely limited.
In my opinion, it is far easier & more productive to use Lazarus/FreePascal than those tools, managed code or no managed code. Lazarus/FreePascal supports RAD & has no silly dependencies like .NET :D
Incidentally, .NET took off when Anders Hejlsberg, the Borland engineer that created Turbo Pascal & worked on Delphi left Borland & joined Microsoft to work on the C# language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg
-
In my opinion, it is far easier & more productive to use Lazarus/FreePascal than those tools, managed code or no managed code. Lazarus/FreePascal supports RAD & has no silly dependencies like .NET
Right, except that .Net is a runtime that comes preinstalled on newer Windows versions and it gives you access to all APIs on that platform, with examples being provided on MSDN and tons of example code freely available on the Web. That is one of our little problems in Lazarus/FPC, access to the libraries. The deal breaker for me is that .Net byte code is relatively easy to reverse engineer and performance is slightly below what you get with native code.
-
In my opinion, it is far easier & more productive to use Lazarus/FreePascal than those tools, managed code or no managed code. Lazarus/FreePascal supports RAD & has no silly dependencies like .NET
Right, except that .Net is a runtime that comes preinstalled on newer Windows versions and it gives you access to all APIs on that platform, with examples being provided on MSDN and tons of example code freely available on the Web. That is one of our little problems in Lazarus/FPC, access to the libraries. The deal breaker for me is that .Net byte code is relatively easy to reverse engineer and performance is slightly below what you get with native code.
I forgot to add the biggest .Net annoyance of them all for me. I discovered that programs written for one version of a .Net runtime may not work for another version of the .Net runtime. For example, I have .Net 3.5 runtime installed on my machine & if I want to use programs developed for .Net versions 1.1 & 2.0, I need to also install the runtimes for those version. >:(
I thought that the never .Net versions were supersets of the older versions but apparently that was not the case. I don't want to have different versions of the .Net runtimes running on my machine. I don't know if this is the case with .Net 4 because I've stopped development for .Net
As for access to Lazarus/FPC example code & libraries, I lean heavily on what is available for Delphi on the Web. I then do whatever conversion is necessary to make it work in Lazarus/FPC.
-
To the ones that tried it, does it stand the Delphi/lazarus test ? Does doubleclicking a button jump to the source where the code can be written to handle it?
I never want to use anything again where the designer is like a loosely coupled IDE component, and where you have maintain your own tables or whatever to see what component maps to which code.
Does it have intellisense like functionality? Only an editor feature, but one that is hard to miss. (and the Lazarus one is getting pretty good)
-
To the ones that tried it, does it stand the Delphi/lazarus test ? Does doubleclicking a button jump to the source where the code can be written to handle it?
Does it have intellisense like functionality? Only an editor feature, but one that is hard to miss. (and the Lazarus one is getting pretty good)
Yes to all the questions you asked above. The IDE is very good. See the attached screenshot for the SharpDevelop's editor intellisense. My problem is with the .Net idiosyncracies.
-
I discovered that programs written for one version of a .Net runtime may not work for another version of the .Net runtime. For example, I have .Net 3.5 runtime installed on my machine & if I want to use programs developed for .Net versions 1.1 & 2.0, I need to also install the runtimes for those version.
The way I understand it, in the .Net world releases 1.0/1.1 are standalone (not included in higher releases) while higher releases are backward compatible down to 2.0. That is:
3.0 = 2.0 + extensions
3.5 = 2.0 + 3.0 + extensions
and so on. However, they can be installed side by side. I read a comment on a forum saying that an app may be unable to detect the installed .Net release(s) correctly unless they were installed via Windows Update.
-
The way I understand it, in the .Net world releases 1.0/1.1 are standalone (not included in higher releases) while higher releases are backward compatible down to 2.0. That is:
3.0 = 2.0 + extensions
3.5 = 2.0 + 3.0 + extensions
Yes, you are correct, as any number of sources will confirm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework
But even if this were not true, that is, even if you had to manually run a separate installer for each version of the .NET framework, how is that any different from a Lazarus Qt app requiring a specific version of Qt, or a database app requiring a specific version of Sqlite, etc?
Some of the most often asked questions here involve the location of specific libraries and how to install them and link to them, particularly on Linux and OS X. At least with .NET, Microsoft makes it easy to install and compile against the .NET framework.
For example, it only takes one line of code in an InnoSetup script to detect the presence of the required version of .NET. And only a few more lines of code to either run the redistributable .NET installer (if you've included it with your installer) or to go to Microsoft's Web site if you think your users can download it themselves.
.NET language features that I really like include the ability to mix assemblies written in different languages (VB.NET, C#, Delphi Prism), and partial classes. Partial classes are similar to categories in Objective C (note that categories are now supported by FPC 2.5.1 with the {$MODESWITCH ObjectiveC1} on OS X and iOS).
.NET is a good choice for new Windows-only apps that target Windows Vista and Windows 7. In the future it will also be the tool of choice for Windows Phone development.
The original question related to using MonoDevelop here, or something. That's the part I don't understand. MonoDevelop does have a form designer, but it's for GTK#, not LCL.
Thanks.
-Phil
-
For example, it only takes one line of code in an InnoSetup script to detect the presence of the required version of .NET. And only a few more lines of code to either run the redistributable .NET installer (if you've included it with your installer) or to go to Microsoft's Web site if you think your users can download it themselves.
Would you mind sharing these lines of code with me? :)
I use InnoSetup myself so that will be useful to have.
The original question related to using MonoDevelop here, or something. That's the part I don't understand. MonoDevelop does have a form designer, but it's for GTK#, not LCL.
That's right and thus Windows applications written using MonoDevelop have the GTK# look. I personally don't like the GTK# look on Windows. LCL is far better.
Like you, I'm watching the evolution of Delphi Prism. I'm hoping it'll revive corporate interest in Pascal as a serious development language.
-
Would you mind sharing these lines of code with me? :)
I use InnoSetup myself so that will be useful to have.
Here's an open source example:
http://svn.mapwindow.org/svnroot/InstallationProjects/4.8/MapWindow%20Application%20x86/
Look at MapWindowx86.iss
Like you, I'm watching the evolution of Delphi Prism. I'm hoping it'll revive corporate interest in Pascal as a serious development language.
I doubt if that will happen. Have you ever met a .NET programmer who has even heard of Prism?
Thanks.
-Phil
-
http://svn.mapwindow.org/svnroot/InstallationProjects/4.8/MapWindow%20Application%20x86/
Look at MapWindowx86.iss
Thanks a lot, Phil. :D
-
Also, I assume you've seen this:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Using_Pascal_Libraries_with_.NET_and_Mono
Thanks.
-Phil
-
.NET is a good choice for new Windows-only apps that target Windows Vista and Windows 7.
IMHO Lazarus is a much better solution to target any Windows version.
In the future it will also be the tool of choice for Windows Phone development.
For all the 3 phones using it =) Seriously, the largest seller of Windows Mobile phones, HTC, is moving to Android, just like all other companies that use Windows Mobile too. People aren't much interrested in rewriting their Windows Mobile code to .NET. Restricting development on the Phones to .NET will just remove Microsoft from this market. And they will get what they deserve for such an unethical move.
-
ike you, I'm watching the evolution of Delphi Prism. I'm hoping it'll revive corporate interest in Pascal as a serious development language.
IMO Oxygene (the Delphi Prism language) is only remotely related to Object Pascal, mostly because the .Net framework is a different paradigm when compared to the Windows API. More exactly: Oxygene is not Pascal. But the main hurdle to Delphi Prism adoption, just like for Delphi itself, is the lack of a free version and documentation. The Embarcadero folks argued that, while M$ can afford to make VS Express available for free, they can not. Try finding documentation on the Web for Delphi 2007 for .Net -- there isn't any. Delphi Prism will always be one step behind Visual Studio for C#.
-
I think this is an extremely interesting option that we have, on all platforms.
Also, I assume you've seen this:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Using_Pascal_Libraries_with_.NET_and_Mono
Thanks.
-Phil
-
I think this is an extremely interesting option that we have, on all platforms.
Also, I assume you've seen this:
http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Using_Pascal_Libraries_with_.NET_and_Mono
One limitation, though, is that you do have to "flatten" your code to call the native dll/so/dylib from .NET/Mono. That is, you need to pass simple "C" types and can't pass objects the way you can, say, with a VB.NET assembly calling a Delphi Prism assembly (and vice versa). However, once you've done that you can use the native library from any language.
With Delphi, I was even able to use Delphi forms in my DLL. They look just slightly different from a WinForms form, but good enough for my use in a .NET app. Don't know if the issue of LCL forms in a native library were ever solved with Lazarus.
Thanks.
-Phil
-
IMO Oxygene (the Delphi Prism language) is only remotely related to Object Pascal, mostly because the .Net framework is a different paradigm when compared to the Windows API. More exactly: Oxygene is not Pascal. But the main hurdle to Delphi Prism adoption, just like for Delphi itself, is the lack of a free version and documentation. The Embarcadero folks argued that, while M$ can afford to make VS Express available for free, they can not. Try finding documentation on the Web for Delphi 2007 for .Net -- there isn't any. Delphi Prism will always be one step behind Visual Studio for C#.
Just so it's clear: Delphi.NET is unrelated to Delphi Prism.
There is a free Delphi Prism command line compiler - I've used it with both .NET on Windows and Mono on OS X.
https://downloads.embarcadero.com/free/delphi_prism
Thanks.
-Phil
-
Just so it's clear: Delphi.NET is unrelated to Delphi Prism.
Thanks, I was aware of that :)
There is a free Delphi Prism command line compiler - I've used it with both .NET on Windows and Mono on OS X.
Yep, and I hope some bright people will integrate it into Eclipse or something similar.
-
For all the 3 phones using it =) Seriously, the largest seller of Windows Mobile phones, HTC, is moving to Android, just like all other companies that use Windows Mobile too. People aren't much interrested in rewriting their Windows Mobile code to .NET. Restricting development on the Phones to .NET will just remove Microsoft from this market. And they will get what they deserve for such an unethical move.
Microsoft doesn't have to dominate to be successful. I don't see anything unethical about requiring developers to use certain tools for a particular phone platform. Don't make the mistake of assuming this decision is about us developers. It's really about the users (buyers) of the phones and about how to provide them with the best experience, best apps, and quickest turnaround when new OS and device releases are made.
Thanks.
-Phil
-
With Delphi, I was even able to use Delphi forms in my DLL. They look just slightly different from a WinForms form, but good enough for my use in a .NET app.
Thanks for the info.
-
For all the 3 phones using it =) Seriously, the largest seller of Windows Mobile phones, HTC, is moving to Android, just like all other companies that use Windows Mobile too. People aren't much interrested in rewriting their Windows Mobile code to .NET. Restricting development on the Phones to .NET will just remove Microsoft from this market. And they will get what they deserve for such an unethical move.
Microsoft doesn't have to dominate to be successful. I don't see anything unethical about requiring developers to use certain tools for a particular phone platform
True, but it doesn't make it quite attractive either. And not just for that 1% of developers that use something else. Usually such behaviour indicates a certain iron grip that the other 99% will face sooner or later too. E.g. because they don't care about backwards compatibility, because they can change their tarifs, because they can easily impose other requirements that wreck your business.
Don't make the mistake of assuming this decision is about us developers. It's really about the users (buyers) of the phones and about how to provide them with the best experience, best apps, and quickest turnaround when new OS and device releases are made.
A platform is an equilibrium of vendor, users and developers. Piss off one group too much (or, leave them without a profit/something usuable), and it will fail.
Personally I think Windows mobile 7 is an attempt to differentiate the Windows CE market into a cheap market where the Telco's have full control over what is run (and thus can improve yield/customer), and whatever real CE comes next that will remain reserved for the more highend and enterprise devices and other, non phone embedded devices.
-
Microsoft doesn't have to dominate to be successful.
Microsoft is too large to define it's success only by making a good % out of a small market share. And also from the developer point of view, if they have a very small market share, they aren't relevant, and there is no use rewriting your application to support a platform which is incompatible with everything else and holds a small market share.
So quite the contrary, they do need at least more then 10% of the market share to avoid being a failure considering the huge amount of resources they have.
I don't see anything unethical about requiring developers to use certain tools for a particular phone platform. Don't make the mistake of assuming this decision is about us developers.
Sure it is about making their .NET platform more valuable by making it the only way to develop Windows Phone apps. Nothing monopolistic about that =) Just that this time it's backfiring and we already see an exodus of manufacturers.
It's really about the users (buyers) of the phones and about how to provide them with the best experience, best apps, and quickest turnaround when new OS and device releases are made.
Offering a native API doesn't change anything for users in any of these terms. And quickest OS development is a terrible excuse, like if they don't have enough money to pay a couple dozen developers to work on the native API. ::)
-
A platform is an equilibrium of vendor, users and developers. Piss off one group too much (or, leave them without a profit/something usuable), and it will fail.
Not sure I would include us developers in this love triangle. With consumer phones (almost all, that is), the relationship is between vendor and user. We're in there somewhere but we're a tiny group, fragmented, and don't influence either group. With desktop computers the most important relationship has been between vendor and IT groups within organizations and companies (note that Steve Jobs has commented on this, referring to IT people as "confused"). It remains to be seen whether IT will have the same role for mobile devices, which in some cases are already locked down and auto-updating, meaning these guys don't have as much to do.
Personally I think Windows mobile 7 is an attempt to differentiate the Windows CE market into a cheap market where the Telco's have full control over what is run (and thus can improve yield/customer), and whatever real CE comes next that will remain reserved for the more highend and enterprise devices and other, non phone embedded devices.
I would expect them to kill off CE, if they haven't done so internally already after the Kin failure (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/07/kin).
We still don't really know how well Windows 7 and .NET scale down to mobile devices. OS X and Cocoa apparently scale down pretty well on iOS, as do Linux and Java on Android. I think it's funny to see how after years of steadily increasing processor clock speeds (which we hardly notice while plugged into A/C), that the mobile device is constrained by battery life (too fast and the thing will burn your hand). This goes a long way in explaining at least in part many of Apple's restrictions on developers (re multi-tasking, VMs, Xcode, etc.).
Thanks.
-Phil
-
By analogy with another high tech field, drug development (in which I work), I think that we will see more attempts from large IT companies at controlling niche markets. The time of the blockbuster products may be gone. Battles will be waged over smaller fields, IT companies will address the needs of smaller groups of customers provided they have large pockets.
-
But the main hurdle to Delphi Prism adoption, just like for Delphi itself, is the lack of a free version and documentation. The Embarcadero folks argued that, while M$ can afford to make VS Express available for free, they can not.
This is the main reason why new developers & beginning Computer Science courses systematically turn to Microsoft's Visual Basic/C++/C# Express offerings. I really regret the demise of the free Turbo Explorer offerings. Last thing I want is for Pascal to turn to a hobbyist language.
Unless compelled to do otherwise, I'm still more inclined to develop in Pascal (Delphi/Lazarus) than in C# because the tools are cheaper or free & deployment is easier!
In my opinion, Embarcadero dosen't seem to know what to do with Delphi Prism/Oxygene. Just visit their website & you'll see that the product seems to be an "extra" offering, a poor cousin of their mainline products & not a worthy strategy to give Pascal a voice in the .Net/Java world. It may end up going the way of Delphi.NET :(
-
I don't see anything unethical about requiring developers to use certain tools for a particular phone platform. Don't make the mistake of assuming this decision is about us developers.
Sure it is about making their .NET platform more valuable by making it the only way to develop Windows Phone apps. Nothing monopolistic about that =) Just that this time it's backfiring and we already see an exodus of manufacturers.
.NET is what MS is betting on, just as Apple is betting on ObjC and LLVM. It would be very odd if MS did not try to push .NET on mobile devices. The exodus of manufacturers is unrelated to that.
It's really about the users (buyers) of the phones and about how to provide them with the best experience, best apps, and quickest turnaround when new OS and device releases are made.
Offering a native API doesn't change anything for users in any of these terms. And quickest OS development is a terrible excuse, like if they don't have enough money to pay a couple dozen developers to work on the native API. ::)
Reviewing the timeline for the release of iOS 4 is instructive. This is a major update and the 4th major release in as many years. That alone is just staggering compared to desktop OSs.
Since I'm an Apple Developer I have all the e-mail announcements from the last several months that went out to all of their developers.
April 9, 2010: First beta of iOS 4 (still called iPhone OS) and SDK available for download.
April 20: Beta 2
May 5: Beta 3
May 19: Beta 4
June 10: GM released during WWDC conference
June 24: iPhone 4 released
July 1: Apple reminds developers that new and updated iOS apps need to be compiled against SDK 4.
July 7: Almost all of the apps I have on my iPod touch have been updated to iOS 4.
Compared to desktop OS's, where tool developers typically have months and even years to update tools for a new release, this all happened in less than 3 months. How did Apple accomplish this? Well, for one thing, they control the tools and have invested heavily in open source projects like LLVM, WebKit, etc.
The result is that user expectations are met: many apps are immediately available in updated versions almost simultaneously with the new OS/device launch. Developer expectations are also met: Just recompile in many cases.
Where do 3rd party tools fit into this new world? Well, maybe they don't. Or at least not in the way that we traditionally think of them.
A similar timeline could probably be constructed for Android, which is also moving incredibly fast, maybe even faster than iOS. This is really unprecedented, I think. But I think it represents a tipping point of sorts, a culmination of all the long hard years of development of Unix, Linux, OS X, GCC, Java, Internet standards, etc. It appears as though finally the fruit can be harvested by the public.
Thanks.
-Phil
-
.NET is what MS is betting on, just as Apple is betting on ObjC and LLVM. It would be very odd if MS did not try to push .NET on mobile devices. The exodus of manufacturers is unrelated to that.
Both are unethical monopolists IMHO, and the fact that both are targeted by regulation agencies just proves that. And I don't think it unrelated. Indeed Windows Mobile was already falling, but now if you have to rewrite all your code to support it, it just doesn't make sense. It's a good opportunity to just migrate to something more stable, of which you have a higher degree of control, like Android.
Where do 3rd party tools fit into this new world? Well, maybe they don't. Or at least not in the way that we traditionally think of them.
There are solutions to support a 3rd party environment in very rapidly changing platforms:
1 - Run as a web page instead of a compiled program. HTML + Javascript works like that. But then Pascal gets limited to the server side.
2 - Emulation, which usually means supporting a bytecode. Just like Java and Flash works. In that sense I think that the future of FPC/Lazarus in such unstable targets would be generating Java Bytecode. I've already done some experiments with that, and I'm pretty sure 99% of our code will keep running. It's just a metter of doing a good mapping between the capabilities of the Java assembler and Pascal and you can emulate almost any Pascal code.
Further, there are international specifications for generic phone/PDA APIs (Such as accelerometer, SMS, Phone, etc) being developed, so you can just implement them for your language and you have cross-platform PDA support.
Obviously the venders can then push even harder to block cross-platform development, like Apple is doing, which goes back to my point of them being unethical monopolists.
-
A platform is an equilibrium of vendor, users and developers. Piss off one group too much (or, leave them without a profit/something usuable), and it will fail.
Not sure I would include us developers in this love triangle. With consumer phones (almost all, that is), the relationship is between vendor and user. We're in there somewhere but we're a tiny group, fragmented, and don't influence either group.
If so, why do they bother to have free development tools, api's etc ? They need us, so we are part of the triangle.
Sure, they rather have us mute, and believe we can change anything.
I'm not some visionary that now comes with great freetard theory, and that steers the discussion in the direction of Linux.
But the reality IS simply that developers vote with their feet if they don't like the target. They might be meek sheep in the beginning when margins are high (like e.g. with IPhone), and it can take a while. But when a significant other contender appears, it usually comoditizes the platform, and has an edge.
With desktop computers the most important relationship has been between vendor and IT groups within organizations and companies (note that Steve Jobs has commented on this, referring to IT people as "confused"). It remains to be seen whether IT will have the same role for mobile devices, which in some cases are already locked down and auto-updating, meaning these guys don't have as much to do.
I usually think Jobs is full of it.
Personally I think Windows mobile 7 is an attempt to differentiate the Windows CE market into a cheap market where the Telco's have full control over what is run (and thus can improve yield/customer), and whatever real CE comes next that will remain reserved for the more highend and enterprise devices and other, non phone embedded devices.
I would expect them to kill off CE, if they haven't done so internally already after the Kin failure (http://daringfireball.net/linked/2010/07/07/kin).
I think they remove it from the end-user market, except maybe the high end.
We still don't really know how well Windows 7 and .NET scale down to mobile devices.
What does Windows 7 have to do with it? CF.NET scales down fine, it has done this longer than Apple has with COCOA.
OS X and Cocoa apparently scale down pretty well on iOS, as do Linux and Java on Android. I think it's funny to see how after years of steadily increasing processor clock speeds (which we hardly notice while plugged into A/C), that the mobile device is constrained by battery life (too fast and the thing will burn your hand). This
goes a long way in explaining at least in part many of Apple's restrictions on developers (re multi-tasking, VMs, Xcode, etc.).
I don't think there really are technical reasons behind that.
-
I'm not some visionary that now comes with great freetard theory, and that steers the discussion in the direction of Linux.
But the reality IS simply that developers vote with their feet if they don't like the target. They might be meek sheep in the beginning when margins are high (like e.g. with IPhone), and it can take a while. But when a significant other contender appears, it usually comoditizes the platform, and has an edge.
Is that even true? How could we test that assertion? Well, what about this:
2001: Windows 92% of desktop market, Mac 4%, Linux 1%
2009: Windows 91%
http://www.windowsitpro.com/article/desktop-management/study-shows-that-windows-owns-the-desktop-market.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
That's why the new markets that Apple has created with the iOS devices is interesting. Suddenly the mix is not static (ie, stagnant) as it has been for the last decade on the desktop. Historically very few people have had any direct experience with OS X or Linux. Now suddenly a great many people appear to be enthusiastically embracing a non-Windows OS on a computer. It's not a phone, it's a tiny computer connected to a tiny touchscreen and to a mobile phone radio modem.
Another measure of sorts:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/freelancercom-announces-the-fastest-growing-online-jobs-for-q2-with-the-release-of-the-freelancer-fast-50-97839529.html
This is a pretty oddball list. I'm not sure where this stuff comes from or how the categories are determined, but one thing it does do is scream, "it's not the desktop anymore". It confirms what I've thought for a while, that desktop software development is on the verge of irrelevancy. Well, let me restate that: Desktop development, even new projects,will continue; most desktop software development will continue to target Windows; much of it will continue to be Windows-only. However, Web development and mobile development has sucked most of the oxygen out of the desktop air.
Thanks.
-Phil
-
but one thing it does do is scream, "it's not the desktop anymore". It confirms what I've thought for a while, that desktop software development is on the verge of irrelevancy.
But all these mobile yet less powerful devices (when compared to notebooks, desktops, and servers) will run applications that need to "talk" to a server that is controlled by a service provider, just like traditional phones, mobile or landlines, rely on a telephony service provider. That is why softwares for mobile will probably soon become a commodity, not to mention that they will be subject to the vagaries of platform owners.
-
Is that even true? How could we test that assertion? Well, what about this:
2001: Windows 92% of desktop market, Mac 4%, Linux 1%
2009: Windows 91%
So? This was wrt openness for development tools, and this very forum has a win32/64/ce development tool.
The only thing you can blame MS for on the desktop is the licensing shenigans wrt the Ribbon widget, and maybe now Windows Phone
That's why the new markets that Apple has created with the iOS devices is interesting. Suddenly the mix is not static (ie, stagnant) as it has been for the last decade on the desktop. Historically very few people have had any direct experience with OS X or Linux. Now suddenly a great many people appear to be enthusiastically embracing a non-Windows OS on a computer. It's not a phone, it's a tiny computer connected to a tiny touchscreen and to a mobile phone radio modem.
We've all heard it before. We have all seen hypes. We'll see how it fares in the long run.
Another measure of sorts:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/freelancercom-announces-the-fastest-growing-online-jobs-for-q2-with-the-release-of-the-freelancer-fast-50-97839529.html
This is a pretty oddball list. I'm not sure where this stuff comes from or how the categories are determined, but one thing it does do is scream, "it's not the desktop anymore".
Fast growth in employment != dominant form of development. That said, mobile development is here to stay, but it could be that we are currently in a frenzied high where everybody wants to get on the bandwagon due to highhanded "visionary" statements like you are making above.
The web has said to kill desktops at least 5 times, and desktops are still here, and other every PC.
It confirms what I've thought for a while, that desktop software development is on the verge of irrelevancy. Well, let me restate that: Desktop development, even new projects,will continue; most desktop software development will continue to target Windows; much of it will continue to be Windows-only. However, Web development and mobile development has sucked most of the oxygen out of the desktop air.
I think one can't make such farreaching conclusions by comparing an estabilished market with one that is undergoing a boom. You can read anything you want in such figures.
-
This is a pretty oddball list. I'm not sure where this stuff comes from or how the categories are determined, but one thing it does do is scream, "it's not the desktop anymore". It confirms what I've thought for a while, that desktop software development is on the verge of irrelevancy. Well, let me restate that: Desktop development, even new projects,will continue; most desktop software development will continue to target Windows; much of it will continue to be Windows-only. However, Web development and mobile development has sucked most of the oxygen out of the desktop air.
I don't think this matters at all. In my experience mobile development is extremely similar to desktop development.
The important point for me is having the possibility to keep developing the way I most enjoy. That is: With FPC and/or Lazarus, regardless of the target platform, which might be:
* Desktop platforms: We already have Windows, Linux/Unix, Mac OS X
* Mobile platforms: We have Windows Mobile, although we will probably loose it depending on Microsoft, we were starting on iPhone, but now it is problematic. Android is *very* promissing, and despite being focused on Java, they don't put arbitrary limits on which programing environment you can use, you can also run native applications and if you manage to bind them to the Java API you are ready to go. I am working with Android in my new work and it's an excelent platform.
* Web-programming: We already have fpWeb and it could be integrated into Lazarus like IntraWeb with some effort. I vaguely remember that there are some steps towards something like this already done.
So I don't think that the kind of platform matters much, as long we can keep programming like we enjoy and the only impossible obstacle to overcome here is the unethical behavior of some venders. All the technical obstacles are 100% solvable with the appropriate development of FPC / Lazarus.
-
I don't think this matters at all. In my experience mobile development is extremely similar to desktop development.
The important point for me is having the possibility to keep developing the way I most enjoy. That is: With FPC and/or Lazarus, regardless of the target platform, which might be:
* Desktop platforms: We already have Windows, Linux/Unix, Mac OS X
* Mobile platforms: We have Windows Mobile, although we will probably loose it depending on Microsoft, we were starting on iPhone, but now it is problematic. Android is *very* promissing, and despite being focused on Java, they don't put arbitrary limits on which programing environment you can use, you can also run native applications and if you manage to bind them to the Java API you are ready to go. I am working with Android in my new work and it's an excelent platform.
* Web-programming: We already have fpWeb and it could be integrated into Lazarus like IntraWeb with some effort. I vaguely remember that there are some steps towards something like this already done.
So I don't think that the kind of platform matters much, as long we can keep programming like we enjoy and the only impossible obstacle to overcome here is the unethical behavior of some venders. All the technical obstacles are 100% solvable with the appropriate development of FPC / Lazarus.
I would love to see some way of devloping for webOS with Lazarus. I think if this was a new priority we could have one of the best tools for what I beleive is soon to be a top competitor in the mobile OS market. It is steadily growing. webOS is just totaly awesome. A version of QT has been ported to it some how. I don't know the details but since webOS is based on linux and also open source i don't see why it would be that hard to build some sort of an app that will allow lazarus apps to run within it. Maybe that is not the right path but in my head this is how i think it should work.
Someone that is smart build a standard webOS app that runs linux binaries in its card. Heck someone already had OpenOffice running on a Palm Pre! I think that making this the ultimate development platform for webos would give the over all lazarus project a good swift kick in the ass and draw a lot of attention and maybe even more people to develop and improve lazarus.
-
All good useful information!