Leaderboard

We pay so-called "maintenance" fees to supposedly get bugs fixed. But when the maintenance runs out and then they say you need to renew it to get bugs fixed in the version you already paid for, it's unethical. It makes the so-called "maintanance plan" nothing more than an annual license fee. 10.4.2 is reasonsbly nice but we should get a 10.4.3 that fixes the bugs introduced in 10.4.2, not forced to renew and then have to get D11 instead. If I don't feel like upgrading for a couple of releases, that's ok, it costs the same either way. Since inline vars were introduced in 10.x, the refactoring stopped being useful. In 10.4.2, still not useful. But other new features were added. And in 10.4.2, when I use debug inspector and adjust width or the column splitter in the popup form, Delphi hangs. All you can do is kill it in Task Manager and restart it. This happens at least 50% of the time when I inspect variables while debugging. This should have been fixed a week after 10.4.2 shipped. Nope. I guess the problems with the web server stuff that only a fraction of customers use are more important than the debugger that freezes the IDE that everybody uses. PRIORITIES.... I also have a regular problem when looking at stringlists using the stringlist viewer. It throws repeated exceptions (via MadExcept) about some issue with a Boolean, and reloads the viewer many, many times. You have to close the exception box each time, and sometimes it just recurses so many times it's easier to just kill delphi and restart it. But other stuff was fixed with patches. This crap was released under a maintenance plan. It should be fixed in a 10.4.x update, not requiring people to move to a newer version for resolution subject to renewal of the maintenance plan. I honestly don't want to move to D11 at this time. Just more new bugs to deal with. I WANT STABILITY! I'm really tired of every new release fixing some old bugs that should have been fixed before, then adding new stuff and more bugs. We NEVER get to a point of STABILITY with ANY release!!! What we can count on is that there will be a major new release every fall that will stop the previous version dead in its tracks and force you to upgrade whether you want to or not just to get older bugs fixed. If you have an end-of-the-line update before a new release (eg, 10.4.2), another one should be released to everybody that fixes outstanding bugs that makes it stable without requiring you upgrade to the next version. Customers paying for "maintenance" deserve a STABLE UPDATE at the end of a line before upgrading to a whole new release.

I agree with that. Now, without going into whether Embarcadero is currently giving stable updates or not at the end of the line... In reality stability is possible only on Windows and Linux platforms because those platforms are stable enough. And even on Windows there will be issues in releases when major Windows version changes or some larger feature is introduced. Not all such compatibility issues can be easily backported without making breaking interface changes. On Android, iOS and macOS situation is completely different. New major OS versions are released on yearly basis, breaking havoc in both backward compatibility and ability to run applications on new OS versions. Often even building applications with new tools required will be broken. Porting back is often mission impossible. Delphi IDE is highly integrated environment and you cannot just easily swap and update only some parts that are broken. For those fast moving platforms only viable option is moving forward, having active subscription and participating in beta testing when it is publicly available. Or using other toolsets if Delphi does not fit well for certain use cases.

It depends on what you mean by "can be converted to number". If your definition is that TryStrToFloat returns True, then the answer is no. If you're willing to give up some of the features of TryStrToFloat then the answer is yes, but you are going to have to implement it yourself - in assembler. But why do you need it to be faster? Is it a bottleneck for you?

or open source the IDE + everything, apart from compilers. Have a licenses that protects EMB investment but allows Pull Requests and co-development with community

delphicon.embarcadero.com November 16th to 18th All online, all free

Have a look at the routines in SVGIconImageList/SVGCommon.pas at master · EtheaDev/SVGIconImageList (github.com) (GetExtended in the implementation section). They were "stolen" from synopse/mORMot: Synopse mORMot ORM/SOA/MVC framework (github.com) and they did make a big difference when parsing SVG files.

Not going to happen. And neither the IDE. We have had this discussion too many times already.

We all use what works for us. I used Delphi 7 for a long time. You cannot directly compare Android Studio and Delphi. In Android Studio, different parts of the whole toolset are more pluggable and exchangeable. In Delphi main problem is that IDE and core frameworks are firmly tied together. Because changes in platforms often require changes in frameworks - RTL and FMX, they cannot be patched unless changes are limited to implementation parts of the units. So you cannot use one version of the IDE with other version of the frameworks. Also debugger and compiler, are more tied with the rest of the toolset (even though more easily "patchable") than this is the case with Android Studio. Again, without going into specific issues which may be more or less problematic depending on your code, but if you want to develop and release applications for non Windows platforms, you need paid version with subscription. Whether this is an option or not, everyone needs to decide for themselves. Only you know what are the upsides and downsides in your case. Nobody else can make that decision for you. I wish Delphi would be better option and would have less issues, but that does not depend on me or any of us here.

https://www.rabbitmq.com/protocols.html#amqp-10

I've actually been using the FNC components with Stefan's Knockoff for a few years now so I'm very familiar with them. In Knockoff it's easy to create new bindings and this type of MVVM is addictive 🙂 I'd used WPF and also KnockoutJS in the past so when Knockoff came along I was delighted. However I'm now getting close to actually requiring a cross-platform app and every time I used the FMX style designer I lost the will to live. Linking Knockoff and DHTML seemed an ideal solution. That's right - I've been using DHTML for almost a year and it really is an amazing component set. The website and documentation don't do it justice. When you get into it, CSS is just great to use - no fiddling with visual designers if you don't want to. Having said that, you can use something like Figma to create HTML/CSS UIs, e.g.: https://www.uistore.design/items/macos-monterey-free-ui-kit-for-figma/ https://docs.telerik.com/blazor-ui/styling-and-themes/figma-ui-kits An example of what can be achieved just with CSS is here (there are many others): https://picturepan2.github.io/spectre/index.html I'd also briefly looked at Flutter but really don't see the point of adopting another non-standard UI technology. With CSS I can draw on a vast pool of resources, and developers. Another potential benefit of this approach is right-to-left script. I think some of the demos might support this but am not sure - if anyone with an RTL system could test them I'd be grateful.

Maybe if you don't have the human resources and / or time to do a good test and find bugs before releasing the product, and you hope that the customers will find and report them, maybe Embarcadero could offer that version at a lower price and establish a more honest relationship.

main problem is that we have now a buggy D11, but they don't look back and fix the D10 version, there a lot of bugs that they could fix, but they just don't. i thought part of the subscription program was that they would fix bugs from a previous release. They entered a path where they never gonna get a (reasonable) bug fixed product. very very disappointed.

You'd think that a good engineering department would be able to develop programs to a sufficient level of quality that you wouldn't need the public to do the testing by trial and error. I don't agree with the sentiment here that it is not possible to create good quality software without getting the public to test it.