JonRobertson 39 Posted April 3 42 minutes ago, Vandrovnik said: can you imagine how many broken versions we would have to suffer if they now moved .bpls to another process I still have problems using the "integrated" (sort of) debugger with Win64 projects. Share this post Link to post
Anders Melander 1644 Posted April 3 8 hours ago, A.M. Hoornweg said: COM was used by IDE's such as Visual Basic to host (in-process) VBX controls but it works across processes as well. With in-process COM you'd have all the same problems without any of the benefits of the BPL/DLL packages. With out-of-process COM you'd have the benefit of process separation but you would have to surface the whole TControl and design-time API bidirectionally. It would be a nightmare. Also each process would contain their own linked-in copy of the RTL/VCL. And forget about shoehorning this into the existing IDE; It would have to be rewritten from scratch. No thanks. Share this post Link to post
David Heffernan 2307 Posted April 4 14 hours ago, JonRobertson said: I still have problems using the "integrated" (sort of) debugger with Win64 projects. Win64 debugger is known to be terrible. Perhaps slightly less so with more recent versions. I always debug 32 bit if at all possible. But sometimes you have a scenario where that's not possible. Unlucky if you do. Share this post Link to post
David Heffernan 2307 Posted April 4 20 hours ago, A.M. Hoornweg said: If you'd ask me to attempt a thing like that, I'd first look for a suitable bidirectional RPC framework. Something having capabilities like COM. COM was used by IDE's such as Visual Basic to host (in-process) VBX controls but it works across processes as well. The "helper processes" would only need to contain the designtime part of the components, at runtime they do nothing. Such an approach would move the design time components out of the address space of the IDE. Also, the "bitness" of the helper processes and the IDE would be independent from each other. How are you going to have the components paint themselves on the design surface? Share this post Link to post
Lars Fosdal 1732 Posted April 4 There are ways to do that - but none of them are easy or backwards compatible. Share this post Link to post
A.M. Hoornweg 138 Posted April 4 1 hour ago, David Heffernan said: How are you going to have the components paint themselves on the design surface? There are ways to achieve that (passing an EMF cross-process) but yes, it would be ugly. It would be like re-inventing the RDP protocol. Share this post Link to post
shineworld 68 Posted April 4 In my case would be amazing to have a valid Delphi compiler for ARM64 Linux + FMX. A lot is moving in the embedded world based on ARM architectures + Linux and I've also tried FPC + Lazarus (a nightmare...). Dreams are dreams 🙂 1 Share this post Link to post
David Heffernan 2307 Posted April 4 I think all in all, it's clear that the current in-process design is the right one 5 Share this post Link to post
JonRobertson 39 Posted April 4 2 hours ago, David Heffernan said: I always debug 32 bit if at all possible. I do as well. 2 hours ago, David Heffernan said: But sometimes you have a scenario where that's not possible. Such as weird UI issues that do not occur in 32-bit but do occur in 64-bit, which I've encountered more than once. Share this post Link to post
David Heffernan 2307 Posted April 4 6 minutes ago, JonRobertson said: Such as weird UI issues that do not occur in 32-bit but do occur in 64-bit, which I've encountered more than once Unlucky for you. I've so far never encountered such a problem. The type of thing that forces me to debug 64 bit is when it's my DLL hosted in a 64 bit process, and I don't have a 32 bit version of the host. Share this post Link to post
Sherlock 636 Posted April 11 Well, considering Windows on ARM will be gaining momentum as soon as some of these https://www.windowscentral.com/hardware/laptops/here-are-the-9-pc-makers-supporting-qualcomms-game-changing-snapdragon-x-elite the streets, it might be a smart move to get the compiler running. But that's just my totally unprofessional opinion. On the other hand, MS themselves are increasing the pressure. Just look at the agenda for this years "Build": https://build.microsoft.com/en-US/sessions/9d806202-be61-4b5d-ba0d-59ecfcaf0482?source=sessions Share this post Link to post
Brandon Staggs 192 Posted April 11 5 hours ago, Sherlock said: Well, considering Windows on ARM will be gaining momentum as soon as some of these https://www.windowscentral.com/hardware/laptops/here-are-the-9-pc-makers-supporting-qualcomms-game-changing-snapdragon-x-elite the streets, it might be a smart move to get the compiler running. But that's just my totally unprofessional opinion. On the other hand, MS themselves are increasing the pressure. Just look at the agenda for this years "Build": https://build.microsoft.com/en-US/sessions/9d806202-be61-4b5d-ba0d-59ecfcaf0482?source=sessions Microsoft has been "increasing the pressure" on non-WinTel32 development for a decade. I remember thinking Embarcadero needed to hurry up and give me an option to target Windows Phone. Then to get serious about WinRT for Windows 8. Etc. Windows on ARM may indeed eventually matter, but I can hardly fault Embarcadero for taking a "wait and see" approach to the latest-and-greatest non-Win32 "pressure increase" from Microsoft. 1 Share this post Link to post
shineworld 68 Posted April 12 A Windows ARM compiler could be interesting because W10/W11 can run in low-cost devices as like as Raspberry overall for kiosk or embedded user panels projects. Share this post Link to post
Anders Melander 1644 Posted April 12 57 minutes ago, shineworld said: W10/W11 can run in low-cost devices as like as Raspberry That sounds like a horrible idea. Why on earth would you run a desktop/server OS on an embedded device? Share this post Link to post
shineworld 68 Posted April 12 (edited) I've already made 😉 RPI 4b running W10 which execute intel 64 bit native code. A very low cost operator interface for a CNC. Also Open GL works but remain the price of intel to arm just in time conversion. All for lees than 90€... All made with Delphi. An early video of first experiments but well working. https://youtu.be/3u0L4uaigV8?si=H5mApXT-ryQ3EbGc Edited April 12 by shineworld Share this post Link to post
Anders Melander 1644 Posted April 12 I think you forgot the price of a Windows license... I know it's possible to run Windows on a Raspberry Pi, I just don't think it makes sense from a business or performance POW. Share this post Link to post
shineworld 68 Posted April 12 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Anders Melander said: I think you forgot the price of a Windows license... I know it's possible to run Windows on a Raspberry Pi, I just don't think it makes sense from a business or performance POW. We bought industrial Iot licence version for 45 to 89€ depending by number an type of cores. W10 1908 version. It works very fine. I in will prepare a video next week. Edited April 12 by shineworld 2 Share this post Link to post