Bill Meyer

It's less about the number -- though number is a consideration -- than about the thoughtful and deliberate decisions made with regard to extending the language. That said, I dare say we all have our pet topics for improvements we may consider very important. One factor in our assessment of the keywords issue is that we have limited awareness of future plans to extend; we cannot properly assess without more data than we presently have.

Historically, the growth of Delphi has been very spare in introducing new keywords, and that is one of its strengths.

Implementing an override to a virtual method the signatures must match. Your error is not from using override, but from changing the signature.

Use override.

I was keen to get Kylix and thought CLX was a good start. I think what killed Kylix was the plethora of Linux distributions which added twists and turns from Borland's perspective. And for those of us testing the waters, the fact that there were only 3 distributions (if memory serves) on which Kylix was certified to work was daunting. Then there was the lack of components -- how many do anything non-trivial in Delphi without the use of third-party components? And as to components, Delphi 1 offered no component in support of serial ports, at a time when almost anything which connected outside the PC used serial ports. That was remedied soon enough by the appearance of third-party components, but always struck me as evidence of blind spots in determining what the base components needed to be. Further, the component business has always been problematic, as Delphi must ship with components, and realistically must also add to its component sets over time, but then risks competing with the third-party vendors who are essential to Delphi's popularity. I do not imagine in my wildest dreams that Embarcadero will do anything serious with open source. The Interbase exercise would be enough to make many take a wait and see position. Why invest in supporting an open source project which is closed again after some months?

History shows that the US looking after its own interests has had us paying most of the costs of defense for Europe since WWII. You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. That said, this thread is wildly off topic, and I will write no more of this.

Truly a bit surprising, but if they continue to include that old palette, then they should at least ensure that it works.

Combativeness is not a tool of persuasion. As to China, wake up and smell the tea. They plan to dominate us as soon as possible, and technology is at the heart of their interests.

Many years ago, I knew an instructor form UC Santa Cruz who could speak endlessly on the irregularities of C syntax, which are legion.

There you go again, charming those you wish to persuade. As a matter of fact, however, your desire that the compiler be open sourced in no way justifies your assertion that it needs to be open sourced.

It is still GPF under the covers, as in the Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_protection_fault The jargon comes from the x86 CPU family. The AV term is discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segmentation_fault

You saved me form the same temptation!

While you antagonize those who will make the actual decision? Votes can be ignored, and have been for years.

If we discuss having used those, we date ourselves. 😉 I still have my TP1 for Z80 manual.

Exit, Break, and Continue all seem to me to be structured GOTOs. They interrupt the flow, but in a well ordered way. Well, at least when used properly, it is well ordered.