Interbase 15 created using MS Visual C++!

[Navid Madani 1]

Just having watched the recorded Embarcadero C++ webinar about Interbase C++, I was surprised that it was written using Visual C++ 2022 for Windows. How on Earth can they expect people to want to use C++ Builder when they have effectively moved away from it? This looks like a nail in C++Builder's coffin. 

Edited October 10 by Navid Madani
Typo

[Anders Melander 2137]

OMG OMG OMG!

 

Maybe you should educate yourself about Interbase's history before making statements like that.

C++ Builder didn't even exist when the first version of Interbase was written and there has never been any reason to migrate it to C++ Builder. Also, AFAIK, it's written in C - not C++.

 

Can you give any reasons why they should use resources on doing it?

[Navid Madani 1]

Yes, I certainly should.

 

But even after reading your post, I am pretty sure Interbase started off with Borland's C compilers (Jim Starkey?).

 

And even if I am wrong and you are correct, why would a company selling a C++ compiler not use it for its own products? Take Lazarus/FPC for example, some GCC and mostly FPC. SBCL, same. Also Racket, Golang, Haskell, OCaml, ... Granted, those are toolchains. Still, the dogfood principle improves toolchain quality. The Linux Interbase binaries could not have been compiled using MSVC++ either. Would that not be another argument to use their own cross-platform C++ compiler?  

 

P.S.: I just went by the webinar that said Visual C++. I was referring to the toolchain rather than the language.

 

As to C++ Builder, it used to be Borland C++, which evolved from Turbo C. I go back to the days of Turbo C.

[Anders Melander 2137]

21 hours ago, Navid Madani said:

I am pretty sure Interbase started off with Borland's C compilers (Jim Starkey?).

Well, you are wrong.

Borland's C compiler didn't exist when Interbase was written, Jim Starkey had just left his job at DEC and started his own company, and the first versions didn't target PC, DOS or even CP/M but rather various flavors of Unix and VMS.

Later Interbase was acquired by Ashton Tate (creator of dBase) which was then acquired by Borland, etc. etc. At no point did anyone ask for Interbase to be rewritten in Borland C because at no point has any one cared what compiler was used to compile it.

 

21 hours ago, Navid Madani said:

why would a company selling a C++ compiler not use it for its own products?

Because Interbase is developed by the database division, the compiler is developed by the tools division, and no one (and I'm talking about the actual users of Interbase here) cares what compiler is used to compile Interbase.

It would take considerable effort to port to another compiler with zero return. Good luck trying to sell that to your customers.

 

21 hours ago, Navid Madani said:

Lazarus/FPC for example, some GCC and mostly FPC. SBCL, same. Also Racket, Golang, Haskell, OCaml

Poor example; Those are all open source (i.e. don't have to be commercially feasible) compilers which are all written in a mix of languages. While the C++ Builder developers might think it would be wonderful if Interbase was compiled with it (which I seriously doubt they care about) there is no reason for the Interbase developers to change compiler just because their parent company happens to own one. Dog-fooding here would only benefit the tool developers.

It's not that I don't see the value of dog-fooding in general; I just don't think it applies with regard to Interbase/C++ Builder and I don't think the fact that Interbase isn't compiled with C++ Builder says anything about C++ Builder.

Edited Sunday at 08:14 PM by Anders Melander

[Frickler 16]

In the past there were Interbase versions for lots of different flavours on UNIX and even for NetWare. None of these platforms were supported by Borland C/C++.

 

Btw. using modern Visual C++ you can even cross compile for Raspberry Pi. However, there is no Interbase version for this platform. I asked at the webinar.

[Navid Madani 1]

Thanks for the response. Around the year 2000, Borland released the source code for InterBase 6. The Windows builds were compiled with Borland C++ 5.5 (stand-alone compiler). So there was a toolchain transition that took place: from Borland's to Microsoft's. I agree the dogfooding principle was a poor example for this case. BTW, Racket is free but not open-source.

 

I also agree that having used C++B would benefit the tool developers. Despite the title, this thread was really meant for C++B rather than InterBase, which I find decent. The only reason we do not use InterBase has to do with its licensing model. The reason we use C++B is to migrate old projects to other toolchains, anticipating its obsolescence. While I wish C++B was better maintained, its modernization is focused on Windows, where Visual C++ is much better. Should they modernize it for other platforms, then there is Qt. I suspect C++B is the next thing Emba will drop.