Bill Meyer

Not noticeable, but this was years ago, and I don't recall how large the encrypted files were. We were moving from D6 to D2006 at the time.

Been there, went with a DLL. The component was unsupported, the vendor gone, and no source. As it was an encryption tool, and not easily reverse engineered because of compatibility issues, we had no real choice. Comparable components using the "same" algorithm delivered quite different results.

If toolbar management is ever consolidated, that would certainly come from a substantial redesign of the IDE, and would certainly be a benefit. Similar to the issue of hotkey centralization. It would be rather silly for any plug-in to try to organize such things, as the various tool vendors would keep doing their own thing, and the task would be endless.

Large is not only lines of code. It also encompasses legacy code with pervasive unit dependency cycles. Then we are talking minutes to build. Yes, minutes.

It's been a very long time since I trusted much in the "compile" option. I don't recall (later than Delphi 1) that it ever felt very reliable.

Breaking changes always come at a cost, and there will always be complaints. But few of us are prescient, and there comes a time -- as when DevExpress replaced the dxGrid with the cxGrid -- when the need to incur the breakage overpowers the costs. When an architecture proves too limiting, or too brittle, then carrying it forward is no kindness. But as Stefan wrote: "...it then is an important responsibility to document them and if necessary provide some tooling to migrate your code..."

I note one big difference: RiverSoftAVG clearly states their engine is static, while SVG Magic claims dynamic (animation) support.

Collecting from the uses clauses will yield the list of all units referenced in the project modules, but parsing the map file is the simplest way I know to discover which units participate in the finished executable.

Having worked in Delphi since D1, and twice having had to deal with the issue of components without source, I would say that the value without source is essentially zero, as the risk factor is not worth any benefits in the short term. So I would suggest that the question as you ask it is simply wrong.

But does it work with those pink lenses?

The IDE can be set up in the new docked style, much like Delphi. Just a matter of installing the packages for it.

Got my ebook edition yesterday. Reading eagerly, and really appreciate the clarity of presentation!

While I agree with your comments about the structure pane's utility when in code, and agree as well that MMX is far better, I would think it much better to lodge a feature request with Embarcadero. This would be merely another checkbox in Tools, Options, and ought not to be terribly difficult for them to implement.

This? https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10768152/delphi-application-leaking-ansistrings

There have been a number of components which attempted to address this issue, but none of them worked very well, in my experience. To be fair, the problem is not in the component design, but in the reality that integer points makes font scaling impractical. If we had font sizes -- and scaling -- in floating point values, then scaling would be straightforward. With integer font sizes, we have proportionally large incremental change at the small sizes, and proportionally small incremental changes at large font sizes.

Then you would need a very large truck!

The compiler encourages that mix, as it warns of the Result not having been initialized otherwise.

I had MMX 12.3 installed in XE7, and later installed 13.0.2. Because of the errors on reports issue I already reported, I am wondering whether there is a way to make the 12.3 installation active again, or is that only possible through a new installation? I've recently moved, and my 12.3 installable is on a machine which is still not set up. Thanks.

Perfect, thanks!

I discovered an error this morning in MMX in D2007. The project is large, with many unit dependency issues. When I open the tool, and then on the menu, select either the Uses Report or the Cycles Report, I get an error, with these details: (000159A9){mmx_bds5.dll} [0BE769A9] [2013C130]{vcl100.bpl } Controls.TControl.DoConstrainedResize (Line 5002, "Controls.pas" + 18) + $14 [201406A7]{vcl100.bpl } Controls.TWinControl.WndProc (Line 7304, "Controls.pas" + 111) + $6 [2013CBF7]{vcl100.bpl } Controls.TControl.CheckNewSize (Line 5291, "Controls.pas" + 4) + $8 [042B5275]{DelphiSpeedUp105.dll} SystemOptimize.DMTSearch (Line 198, "SystemOptimize.pas" + 4) + $7 [042B52B6]{DelphiSpeedUp105.dll} SystemOptimize.GetDynaMethod (Line 236, "SystemOptimize.pas" + 20) + $0 (0011748B){mmx_bds5.dll} [0BF7848B] (001174E1){mmx_bds5.dll} [0BF784E1] [2013CA2C]{vcl100.bpl } Controls.TControl.Click (Line 5229, "Controls.pas" + 9) + $8 [200FCD8B]{vcl100.bpl } StdCtrls.TRadioButton.SetChecked (Line 4048, "StdCtrls.pas" + 11) + $13 (00117000){mmx_bds5.dll} [0BF78000] [20158AC9]{vcl100.bpl } Forms.TCustomForm.DoCreate (Line 2947, "Forms.pas" + 3) + $C [201586A8]{vcl100.bpl } Forms.TCustomForm.Create (Line 2856, "Forms.pas" + 13) + $11 [201586C4]{vcl100.bpl } Forms.TCustomForm.Create (Line 2859, "Forms.pas" + 16) + $9 (00210DE1){mmx_bds5.dll} [0C071DE1] [200EF966]{vcl100.bpl } CommCtrl.ListView_GetNextItem (Line 10154, "win\CommCtrl.pas" + 0) + $E [20199985]{vcl100.bpl } ComCtrls.TCustomListView.GetNextItem (Line 15837, "ComCtrls.pas" + 18) + $B (0011786B){mmx_bds5.dll} [0BF7886B] [201D1BCE]{vcl100.bpl } AppEvnts.TMultiCaster.DoActionExecute (Line 356, "appevnts.pas" + 5) + $E (001D4C0A){mmx_bds5.dll} [0C035C0A] (001D4D42){mmx_bds5.dll} [0C035D42] [2004018B]{rtl100.bpl } Classes.TBasicAction.Execute (Line 11081, "common\Classes.pas" + 3) + $7 [20151359]{vcl100.bpl } ActnList.TContainedAction.Execute (Line 388, "ActnList.pas" + 1) + $2C [201520BC]{vcl100.bpl } ActnList.TCustomAction.Execute (Line 1000, "ActnList.pas" + 7) + $8 [20040057]{rtl100.bpl } Classes.TBasicActionLink.Execute (Line 11010, "common\Classes.pas" + 2) + $7 (0003C041){mmx_bds5.dll} [0BE9D041] (0003BF43){mmx_bds5.dll} [0BE9CF43] [20040E4C]{rtl100.bpl } Classes.StdWndProc (Line 11583, "common\Classes.pas" + 😎 + $0 [201625F0]{vcl100.bpl } Forms.TApplication.ProcessMessage (Line 8105, "Forms.pas" + 23) + $1 [2016262A]{vcl100.bpl } Forms.TApplication.HandleMessage (Line 8124, "Forms.pas" + 1) + $4 [2016291F]{vcl100.bpl } Forms.TApplication.Run (Line 8223, "Forms.pas" + 20) + $3 (00003312){IDEFixPack.dll} [07D64312] [0042297A]{bds.exe } bds.bds (Line 195, "" + 7) + $7 On further testing, I get the same sort of error in XE7 with a project which is much cleaner. This report: (0001A0C1){mmx_bds15.dll} [1452B0C1] [505A0667]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Graphics.TCanvas.RequiredState (Line 4199, "Vcl.Graphics.pas" + 12) + $7 [505E25BE]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.StdCtrls.TCustomLabel.DoDrawThemeTextEx (Line 2200, "Vcl.StdCtrls.pas" + 9) + $3D [505C27C5]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Controls.TControl.DoConstrainedResize (Line 6985, "Vcl.Controls.pas" + 18) + $16 [26815C17]{WO_Common_DXE7.bpl} Dchook.TCustomActiveNotifier.HookProc + $66F [26815D70]{WO_Common_DXE7.bpl} Dchook.TCustomActiveNotifier.HookProc + $7C8 [268160DE]{WO_Common_DXE7.bpl} Dchook.dcRemoveFreeNotification + $212 [2C435170]{WO_LMD_RXE7.bpl} Lmdsctmemmgr.InternalObjectWrapped + $CC [50059C58]{rtl210.bpl } System.@FreeMem (Line 4439, "System.pas" + 20) + $0 [5006132C]{rtl210.bpl } System.@UStrClr (Line 24117, "System.pas" + 14) + $0 [50063678]{rtl210.bpl } System.@FinalizeArray (Line 31376, "System.pas" + 80) + $0 [26815C17]{WO_Common_DXE7.bpl} Dchook.TCustomActiveNotifier.HookProc + $66F [505C76E2]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Controls.TWinControl.WndProc (Line 10038, "Vcl.Controls.pas" + 153) + $6 [2C435170]{WO_LMD_RXE7.bpl} Lmdsctmemmgr.InternalObjectWrapped + $CC [50059C58]{rtl210.bpl } System.@FreeMem (Line 4439, "System.pas" + 20) + $0 [50064A77]{rtl210.bpl } System.@DynArrayClear (Line 34176, "System.pas" + 49) + $0 [50064740]{rtl210.bpl } System.DynArraySetLength (Line 33858, "System.pas" + 9) + $6 [505E7C20]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.StdCtrls.TButtonControl.WndProc (Line 5163, "Vcl.StdCtrls.pas" + 13) + $4 [505C2850]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Controls.TControl.Perform (Line 7010, "Vcl.Controls.pas" + 10) + $8 (0014B39F){mmx_bds15.dll} [1465C39F] (0014B3F5){mmx_bds15.dll} [1465C3F5] [505C3183]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Controls.TControl.Click (Line 7348, "Vcl.Controls.pas" + 9) + $8 [505E98AB]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.StdCtrls.TRadioButton.SetChecked (Line 6205, "Vcl.StdCtrls.pas" + 11) + $13 (0014AEF0){mmx_bds15.dll} [1465BEF0] [5070BB89]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Forms.TCustomForm.DoCreate (Line 3746, "Vcl.Forms.pas" + 3) + $C [5070B6E1]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Forms.TCustomForm.Create (Line 3609, "Vcl.Forms.pas" + 25) + $5 (0014B78F){mmx_bds15.dll} [1465C78F] [50776B56]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.AppEvnts.TMultiCaster.DoActionExecute (Line 390, "Vcl.AppEvnts.pas" + 5) + $A (00234066){mmx_bds15.dll} [14745066] (00234ED2){mmx_bds15.dll} [14745ED2] [5016D517]{rtl210.bpl } System.Classes.TBasicAction.Execute (Line 16099, "System.Classes.pas" + 3) + $3 [505AC25A]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.ActnList.TCustomAction.Execute (Line 259, "Vcl.ActnList.pas" + 19) + $35 [0B6A7E26]{IDEFixPack.dll} RefactoringActionUpdateFix.CustomActionExecute + $22 [5016D39B]{rtl210.bpl } System.Classes.TBasicActionLink.Execute (Line 16010, "System.Classes.pas" + 2) + $3 (00047E2C){mmx_bds15.dll} [14558E2C] (00047D1F){mmx_bds15.dll} [14558D1F] [5016E20C]{rtl210.bpl } System.Classes.StdWndProc (Line 16598, "System.Classes.pas" + 6) + $1 [5071634F]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Forms.TApplication.ProcessMessage (Line 10349, "Vcl.Forms.pas" + 23) + $1 [50716392]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Forms.TApplication.HandleMessage (Line 10379, "Vcl.Forms.pas" + 1) + $4 [507166C5]{vcl210.bpl } Vcl.Forms.TApplication.Run (Line 10517, "Vcl.Forms.pas" + 26) + $3 I do appreciate the "lazy" analysis in the most recent version, as it used to take 20+ minutes to produce the analysis before. I expect much the same, if I ask for a report in this version, but for interactive exploration, the lazy analysis is very nice., Thanks, Bill

And after all these years, the chances seem slim.

Not with such massive unit dependency cycle issues, which are known to cripple the IDE.

I agree completely. That said, they require significant work to remove. And though MMX can present reports on the problem, I am still looking for anything which can simplify the task of identifying the worst offenders. (Yes, it matters, as the full report is a bit overwhelming in this case.)

Your opening comment is very disappointing, given that my first impression of 10.2.3 is that the IDE is slow and flickers obnoxiously. I'm not a fan of themes, so the "solution" is one I can welcome. Is the IDE now perhaps all done with DevExpress controls with skinning? (Just asking...) Successively longer compile times is another disappointment, but having spent weeks now in moving legacy code into XE7 -- where it cannot build, except through the external build process -- has mad me much more sensitive to the numerous defects in the IDE. And I have turned off almost everything that in interactive in the IDE, in the hope of reducing the problem. I will mention, however, that some of your comments lead me to wonder whether your project is free of unit dependency cycles. Mine is not, and I know too well that those cycles lead to many problems. The "stuck" compiler is one of the symptoms I have seen.

Yes, I read your original post. So as I understand it, then, the problem with GetIt makes Tokyo unusable? I did have a similar problem with Tokyo in a VM a couple of months ago. Did the uninstall/reinstall dance, and then it worked. I have my own concerns about Tokyo, but GetIt is not chief among them. That is why I asked.