Sherlock

I didn't read the book, but I'm guessing that only applies when you add those programmers to the same problem. Luckily Delphi has a ton of problems, that could each feed a programmer for at least a month

And in the end, what is the effort worth? Just to say: "In my product 1+1 is still 2 but it looks better than the others".

That will fail quickly for word wrapped captions.

I don't hate them, I just don't need them. 😉

I have gone through the code and replaced those pesky FreeAndNils with FreeMem or Dispose, whatever fit. It compiles fine now, but next step is to redesign the code to get rid of those ancient pointer thingies altogether. Quite annoying. Thanks everyone for your help and insight!

You could think that to be the reason, but I'm looking at code with tons of PArrayOfByte like what I posted. This seems like some very, very old code and an array of byte is rarely implemented as a class is it? Much less back in the olden days.

@Dalija Prasnikar Thank you! I thought that might be the reason. Which brings me to my earlier question: Why use FreeAndNil on Pointers in the first place? Do you have any idea?

German is OK as well I would always use indexed format specifiers though.

Sorry, didn't catch the subform. Can't help then.

We are not aware of the complete wording of said offer, that is something between Andreas and Embarcadero. What we do know from past statements however, is that some form of NDA or other contracts might be involved. But lets not speculate. IDEFixPAck will come once Andreas gets to install a 10.4 CE, which will come out with 10.4.1. So keep your fingers crossed, that this well be soon enough.

Do you mean named pipes?

Of course you might exclude existing users. Those with 32Bit iOS. How many are there, though? What do you know about your users? Do you have any information? However, that still wont lead to a new AppID.

I totally understand, but some eye candy just wont work. And sooner or later some other stuff will follow. This discussion is as old as Windows itself. It used to be "my customers only run DOS" then became "my customers only run 16Bit Windows" over to "my customers only run WinXP" to what we have today. Someone in that story has not learned, and should be beaten with a set of Windows installation floppies: Hardware manufacturers that create one version of their controlling software and never update it, or for an ungodly price. We could break our ears and keep our software running on DOS, or just inform the customers and let them wise up and do a pitchfork and torch run on their machine manufacturer. After all, it is your hide they'll be after if something wont work because their system is outdated - not that this is the case right now.

Thanks for the heads up. Did you report it at QP?

Some files are in use while Delphi is running, so they can't be deleted. I am not sure there is any mechanism that can bypass this. Another subject for Embarcadero to look into.

Now that is a swift and elegant recovery from the blunder earlier. Respect @Embarcadero.

It's called consistency and is considered to be a good thing...most of the time.

Windows 7 is no longer supported, nor should it be. Why support anything even the original manufacturer only supports grudgingly and for a price? As a consequence applications will run, but eye candy will not be as sweet as intended. That seems to be a good compromise to me.

@mvanrijnen That's the reason, yes. But! It should be possible to have a "Restart IDE after install" checkbox, and to be able to uncheck it, when you want to install several things, to then restart after all that, shortening the overall install time significantly.

TBH... that may really have been true. Some more bugs could have been fixed as well in that time. But, same is true if they had deferred the release until next year... so, all is good, the way it happened.

I feared this could happen. It's the same as 10.2 -> 10.3. GetIt does not seem to care about parallel installations and overwrites the "old" Parnassus files.

That's what I would do as well. Though it is nice to have everything in one unit...it is not nice to do so, because that code is not reusable, especially if it is in a dpr. And you never know, if you'll need it later on.

That link needed some correcting, only got 404 from it. So...what is this? A Chatbot for WhatsApp? What do the boys and girls in FB-Land think of it? Is that a violation of some ToS?

Did my civic duty and helped push the server out of the mud.* Then voted for the issue. * Not really