PureBasic Forums - English

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:You are half way there, but Delphi is a native code compiler and does not compile to .NET.

This is incorrect. Delphi was native only in the old days. When Delphi 8 was released in 2003 it was .NET only. Delphi 9 was .NET and native executables. Codegear bought it and literally destroyed the product and staggered the .NET and native EXE releases. Then Embarcadero bought the remains and moved .NET to Delphi Prism and have done all they can to destroy what CoderGear left.

Prism is a completely different compiler and i never mentioned it. I was talking about Delphi and Firemonkey - the current Delphi compilers and not some several years old stuff which has a different name and is nowadays classified as "Delphi-alike language".

Straight from the Delphi Faq for you:

Can I develop .NET applications with Delphi XE2?

No. Delphi XE2 produces native Windows, Mac and iOS binaries. You can import .NET assemblies as COM objects, but the code produced by Delphi XE2 is strictly native code.

Will my users / customers need the .NET runtimes / SDK in order to run my apps built with Delphi?

No. Applications produced with Delphi do not require any .NET runtime support. The product produces pure native Windows applications.

Firemonkey

Embarcadero® Delphi® XE2, now with FireMonkey™, is the fastest way to deliver ultra-rich and visually stunning native applications for Windows, Mac and iOS – including 64-bit Windows applications.

This is from the Firemonkey Faq:

What programming languages do I use to develop FireMonkey applications?

You can program in either "RAD" C++ or Delphi, two easy to learn component based object oriented languages that are used by millions of developers worldwide. You can choose "RAD" C++ to use existing C++ or C-like language skill or to reuse existing ANSI C++ code in FireMonkey applications. Or you can choose Delphi, an elegant and easy to learn object oriented language.

How fast are FireMonkey applications?

FireMonkey applications are 100% CPU and GPU native which means that your applications are executing directly in your hardware and not in software "engines". Application code runs full throttle in the CPU and graphics are executed by your GPU hardware. This means your FireMonkey business applications will run with "hardware level" performance that you simply cannot get from RIA platforms, virtual machine runtimes or dynamic languages.

What is the difference between FireMonkey and RIA platforms like HTML5/CSS, Adobe Flash or Silverlight?

RIA platforms have rich free-form graphics, time based animation, and media capabilities that are well suited for web content, entertainment and advertising. Because RIA applications are typically web embedded, they use scripting and VM engines to execute program code. This provides cross-platform browser compatibility, but comes with a performance trade off. RIA platforms being entertainment focused are not designed around the needs for business applications. Things like enterprise data and services connectivity, business UIs and graphcis, and packaged and enterprise app distribution are not well served with RIA platforms.

FireMonkey is a native application platform, with many of the rich capabilities of RIA platforms such as vector graphics, 3D, animation, effect, and cross-platform but FireMonkey is focused on the unique needs of business, ISV, and industrial use software. FireMonkey is fully CPU and GPU native, UI oriented, and provides powerful database and services connectivity.

It wouldnt be difficult to actually check the Delphi website for this info, but i guess you where too busy "lecturing" here to notice.

Most (if not all) technical information to create a PureBasic "hello world" Metro app for x86 windows 8 is in this thread now. Part of it is WinRT binding which you claimed "irrelevant" at the start of this nonsense discussion

Danilo wrote:PB outputs x86 ASM and x64 ASM. It is no problem to output .NET CIL, ARM ASM or C too.
The problem is that Fred and freak can not support everything. They are now concentrating
on 3 platforms and this is already very much. Maybe too much for a hobby, who knows.

Indeed. Just check the Linux bug report forum or ask Mac OS X guys about their favorite 3 year old bug

Tenaja wrote:How do you define dethroned? Apple has already lost their #1 position for smartphone OS. It will not take long for the android tablet makers to catch up with iPad.

I define it as Apple no longer being the #1 tech company (and depending on the day, the #1 company) in the world.

Tenaja wrote:Asus is currently preselling (shipping in less than 2 weeks) the Transformer Prime--an Android tablet with a Quad-Core ARM 1.3/1.4 GHz (depending upon core activity). How long do you think those single and dual core dogs will last with quad core tabs, and (as I mentioned previously) 2GHz Arms coming soon? If Apple doesn't give the iPad 3 some serious mojo, it's going to follow the iPhone into that "previously a leader" category.

I got to play with Acer's Windows 7 Icon tablet that came out about a year ago and it was very similar to the Transformer. If Asus does as good as Acer did, it should be a hit with Android users. I am finally starting to see more Android tablets in actual use than iPads and that makes me happy.

IdeasVacuum wrote:

Unfortunately, I just can't shake the sinking feeling that MS is too late to the game, yet again.

Yeah and it's not just that - it's also because Win8 Metro is just another 'me too' -the lack of real innovation is a potential killer - MS really needed to conjure-up something that was so much better, it would be an irresistible buy. I can't see why they have not realised this, given that a huge chunk of their customer base is still using XP.

Microsoft's "me too" philosophy is killing them. They need to get back to innovation, but it is very hard for MS to compete when they are solely a software company and can't produce hardware like Apple can. By being reduced to the 3rd or 4th tech company, Microsoft seems to have lost a lot of their bargaining power when it comes to trying to shape the hardware industry.

It is not just XP, 2000 is still in wide use by major companies. I don't expect XP and 2000 to disappear from the corporate world anytime soon. It is hard to convince a business they need to buy a SM3 capable gaming rig just to run the Malibu Barbie GUI on the latest version of Windows.

Danilo wrote:The problem is that Fred and freak can not support everything. They are now concentrating
on 3 platforms and this is already very much. Maybe too much for a hobby, who knows.

I seem to be one of the few who is content with PB as it is when it comes to platform support. Three (or five depending on your count) is more than enough for me. It covers the major bases.

I think the ARM requests come purely from the popularity of the devices. I have yet to see an indie developer doing really well marketing to Android devices, but many indie iOS developers I know are doing very well. I have done contract work for both platforms. I live in a major college area and the kids I am seeing are using a lot more Android based tablets than in previous years. It used to be we would only see iPads. Now the majority of tablets I am seeing are Androids.

Danilo wrote:Look at all that "Windows 8 will fail.", "I hope Apple dies." etc.

When Microsoft was number one, it was en vogue to bash Microsoft. Ever since Apple became number one, it has been en vogue to bash Apple.

The criticisms of Windows 8 do have some merit. Windows 8 will do well on desktops because you have no choice for new PCs and Metro can easily be disabled. In that aspect it won't be another Vista. The ARM version is troubling for three reasons:

1. MS has failed in the tablet market and they have been trying for 10 years.
2. MS is resorting to Apple-esque control over every aspect of the platform which many are upset by. Windows developers are not used to this.
3. For it to be successful, there actually has to be hardware to install the ARM version on. Laptops/Notebooks using ARM won't be hitting until June of 2013. Some reports are now including many of the tablets in that projections.

Danilo wrote:You can think about tomorrow forever and procrastinate or you can see today's endless opportunities...

This is very true for most of what we face in life. Unfortunately, with software development, the software we write today have to run on the systems of tomorrow.

Personally, I am at the age where my yesterdays now outnumber my tomorrows. I could care less what platform I am coding for as long as there is something I can have fun coding for. Calculator, homemade gaming system, etc. Heck, I have even recently got back into developing for DOS. If that goes away, it really won't affect game development too much as there will always be pencil and paper.

[quote="Ramihyn_"]Prism is a completely different compiler and i never mentioned it. I was talking about Delphi and Firemonkey - the current Delphi compilers and not some several years old stuff which has a different name and is nowadays classified as "Delphi-alike language".[quote]

You seem very confused. Let me help you with your continued confusion.

Delphi has always been Delphi, it never had a different name several years ago. Trust me on this, I have used Delphi since it was first released. I used Delphi 1 a lot for Win 3.1 development and I even wrote a programming language with it. I switched to Delphi 2 when it came out because I needed 32-bit. I was actually able to make quite a bit of money off of my Delphi 2 work. At one point, I was even teaching Delphi 2 in my programming class. I continued using Delphi and C++ Builder up until Delphi 8 was released. IMHO, Delphi 8 was when Delphi officially jumped the shark. .NET literally destroyed a great language (much like it did with VB). I am not alone in this thought, as Delphi 7 is still in wide use (as is VB 6). Starting with Delphi 8, the development, marketing and licensing of Delphi has been nothing short of schizophrenic. Through it all, Delphi has always been Delphi, the only name change has been the company who owns the products.

You said: "Delphi is a native code compiler and does not compile to .NET." Those are your words, not mine. I merely corrected you and tried to help you learn about something you are clearly unfamiliar with. There have been several .NET versions of Delphi. As I explained to you, after buying Delphi, Embarcadero stripped .NET from Delphi and moved it to Delphi Prism (which was later shortened to just Prism). To claim that Delphi does not compile to .NET is not only incorrect, but shows a complete lack of knowledge of Delphi. Thousands of developers every day are happily developing .NET software using Delphi, not Prism.

You might want to actually buy Delphi to become familiar with it. I would not recommend anybody buy the crapware produced by Embarcadero, but there are many places to buy legitimate copies of older versions of Delphi, including all five of the Delphi versions that support .NET. Personally, Delphi 7 was the last version of Delphi I liked, but I am biased since I despise .NET.


[quote="Ramihyn_"]Most (if not all) technical information to create a PureBasic "hello world" Metro app for x86 windows 8 is in this thread now. Part of it is WinRT binding which you claimed "irrelevant" at the start of this nonsense discussion [quote]

You have yet to explain why it isn't irrelevant since MS has continually said they will not allow this? Do you have any proof that MS is lying and was lying at BUILD and will indeed allow this?

Nothing would make me happier than MS to reverse their decision and allow Metro apps to be created with any language and allow native desktop apps on ARM. The former really has no bearing in the overall scheme of things and comes down to personal preference for a developer, but the latter has the potential to make or break MS's latest venture on tablets by allowing a lot more software to be created for it which could only be a positive for the EU.

Ramihyn_ wrote:You clearly are stuck several years in the past and ignore the current Delphi compilers for personal reasons.

Do you mean the "old versions" that people are still using daily to develop .NET applications which you claim Delphi is not capable of? Do you mean the Delphi lovers who love Delphi and despise how Embarcadero has all but destroyed the product (not that Code Gear helped it, either)?

Ramihyn_ wrote:If you followed your own advise and actually tried to buy a current Delphi compiler, you would find out that your "Delphi" knowledge got outdated in 2008.

I put in a requisition for XE2 as soon as it was released in September. AFAIK, that is the current version. I have always kept Delphi up to date and I really don't have much choice in the matter as it is a job requisite.

Ramihyn_ wrote:Thats btw. the reason why i said i think you are just trolling by now, you make your own personal "Delphi" definition

There is only one definition of Delphi, because there is only one Delphi. Just as there is only one Visual BASIC, one Visual C++, etc.. Since you are so unfamiliar with Delphi, I encourage you to get the latest version. Embarcadero has released a starter version which, although limited, is a great introduction to Delphi. If that is out of your price range, there are outlets to legally purchase older versions that may be more affordable.

Ramihyn_ wrote:which conveniently excludes the currently sold and maintained compilers

I think the problem is, you are confusing what you said, with what I said. Let me help your confusion. You are the one who stated: "Delphi is a native code compiler and does not compile to .NET." Those are your words, not mine. I merely corrected you and tried to help you learn about something you are clearly unfamiliar with. I even detailed the current versions and explained to you how Embarcadero removed ,NET support and moved it to Delphi Prism aka Prism.

How can I be excluding something when I specifically mentioned it?

Ramihyn_ wrote:and dismiss R&D engineers from the company which creates the actively sold and maintained compilers as "hackers" or "script kiddies" if they do something you declared "impossible".

I have never declared any engineers from any compiler company as hackers or script kiddies. What I addressed was your script kiddie mentality where you are wanting bypass the security measures and development requirements MS is implementing into the new version of Windows for Metro apps. I do not work for Microsoft, they (not me) are the ones who set the development guidelines for their platforms. They, not me, are they ones who will be deciding what Metro apps are allowed in the store and what languages are allowed to be used for developing Metro apps. I have pointed you to the official sources and pointed you to the presentations MS put on at BUILD. I had no involvement with the presentations at BUILD, or maintaining of the content on Microsoft's servers.

If you have information that MS is lying to developers and put on fraudulent presentations at BUILD, I encourage you to come forward with your information. You have an ethical and moral obligation to do so. You could even contact the managing editors for all of the online and print tech journals, the news directors for all of the news outlets and any government agencies who may be interested in prosecuting Microsoft based on the info you are holding, and then hold a press conference and present your information to the world.

Until then, since Microsoft is the company behind Windows 8, I will have to believe them when they say Metro apps can only be developed in certain languages. Since they are the ones who created Metro and are the ones who are creating the store, I tend to believe them when they say what languages can be used and that all Metro apps will have to go through the store and pass certification in order to be allowed on their platform. If it is not playing by their rules, it will not be allowed. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.

It is not like Microsoft is hiding any of this information. They have been very open and honest about the changes that are coming and have gone to great lengths to help developers start preparing.

From my original posting mentioning Delphi:

Ramihyn_ wrote:It seems that Embarcadero plans to support creating Windows 8 Metro apps in Delphi. They have it on their roadmap and the Embarcadero R&D engineer Thom Gerdes already did a Delphi "hello world" Metro native app here: https://plus.google.com/101466385048851 ... 6z7Pk9Hipo

I am clearly not talking about outdated Delphi versions from Borland/Inprise/Codegear. I never did and it wouldnt even make any sense at all because we talk about upcoming windows 8 metro app changes here and i dont think Borland/Inprise/Codegear are digging out old .NET based Delphi sources to adapt them to produce metro apps. So the only .NET based Delphi-alike product which could be affected, would be Prism and not Delphi (XE2), because the others arent actively maintained anymore.

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:You are half way there, but Delphi is a native code compiler and does not compile to .NET.

This is incorrect. Delphi was native only in the old days.

That was your first major error to which i reacted. You write that Delphi was only "native in the old days". Completely wrong unless you magically decide that "Delphi XE2 from Embarcadero is not Delphi".

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:If you followed your own advise and actually tried to buy a current Delphi compiler, you would find out that your "Delphi" knowledge got outdated in 2008.

I put in a requisition for XE2 as soon as it was released in September. AFAIK, that is the current version. I have always kept Delphi up to date and I really don't have much choice in the matter as it is a job requisite.

Now you talk about XE2 and Delphi in the same paragraph using the name for the language just like the company itself and many others including me do.

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:Thats btw. the reason why i said i think you are just trolling by now, you make your own personal "Delphi" definition

There is only one definition of Delphi, because there is only one Delphi.

There is a language called Delphi (Objective Pascal) and there have been several different products based on that "Delphi" language, some compile(d) to native code and some to IL (.NET). At least one of them was simply called "Delphi" and i get the feeling this whole mess only happened because in between you decided that when i mentioned "Delphi", it was meant literally as a product name and not as the name for the language.

Ramihyn_ wrote:That was your first major error to which i reacted. You write that Delphi was only "native in the old days". Completely wrong unless you magically decide that "Delphi XE2 from Embarcadero is not Delphi".

And what you said is incorrect. Delphi has had .NET capabilities since version 8. I explained to you how Embarcadero spilt .NET into Delphi Prism aka Prism (a move I applauded).

Ramihyn_ wrote:Now you talk about XE2 and Delphi in the same paragraph using the name for the language just like the company itself and many others including me do.

Delphi is the product name. Delphi XE2 is merely the latest version. Different companies handle versioning differently. Some use numbers, some use years, some use cutesy things like XE2. After Delphi 8, Delphi versions used years up until Embarcadero nixed years for XE.

Ramihyn_ wrote:There is a language called Delphi (Objective Pascal) and there have been several different products based on that "Delphi" language, some compile(d) to native code and some to IL (.NET). At least one of them was simply called "Delphi" and i get the feeling this whole mess only happened because in between you decided that when i mentioned "Delphi", it was meant literally as a product name and not as the name for the language.

There is only one Delphi, just as there is only one Visual Basic and only one Visual C++. There are now many Object Pascal languages (many syntactically compatible with Delphi), but there is only one Delphi. Delphi is a specific version of Object Pascal. Delphi is a registered trademark originally owned by Borland, then Code Gear and now Embarcadero. Due to trademark laws, there can never be another Delphi because the person creating another Delphi would be sued for trademark violation.

Delphi has always been Delphi. The only thing that has changed name-wise is who owns it. The companies who own products will often use their company name in front of the product name: Borland Delphi, Codegear Delphi, Embarcadero Delphi (just like Microsoft Visual Basic and Microsoft Visual C++). Delphi has always been the same product, just different companies made it due to the product being repeatedly sold. Delphi has always been Delphi which is quite amazing considering the schizophrenic development it has had over the years.

Kuron wrote:Until then, since Microsoft is the company behind Windows 8, I will have to believe them when they say Metro apps can only be developed in certain languages. Since they are the ones who created Metro and are the ones who are creating the store, I tend to believe them when they say what languages can be used and that all Metro apps will have to go through the store and pass certification in order to be allowed on their platform. If it is not playing by their rules, it will not be allowed. It really doesn't get much simpler than that.

Thats where we differ, Apple has said the same and even tried to enforce it sometimes in the past, but while they made a big fuss in the public and acted all tough about this, new applications where regularly added to their app store which where developed in other languages. You just shouldn't publicly mention it or Apple will pull your app and possibly even ban you.

Microsoft is known to backpaddle and change their mind when Developers complain and they are making a very late entrance (again) into the tablet market. Their position in the tablet market will very likely be weak. So i was only interested in a technical solution and not bothered by what Microsoft says what they "intend to do in 2012". The whole discussion is only theoretical for me, the "todo" list for the PureBasic developers is already much too large for the current manpower.

We will see what happens if Embarcadero follows their plans and lets their Delphi compiler create metro apps. If that happens, i think the chances are 4:1 that Microsoft will just allow the apps, even if they will at first give the opposite impression.

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:That was your first major error to which i reacted. You write that Delphi was only "native in the old days". Completely wrong unless you magically decide that "Delphi XE2 from Embarcadero is not Delphi".

And what you said is incorrect. Delphi has had .NET capabilities since version 8.

And again you drag outdated Delphi versions into this, i never talked about them and told you repeatedly now - even pointing you at the fact that i explicitly wrote Embarcadero Delphi in my first posting. It is only you who keeps dragging Borland/Inprise/Codegear Delphi versions into this against the fact that it doesnt make any sense at all.

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:Now you talk about XE2 and Delphi in the same paragraph using the name for the language just like the company itself and many others including me do.

Delphi is the product name. Delphi XE2 is merely the latest version. Different companies handle versioning differently. Some use numbers, some use years, some use cutesy things like XE2. After Delphi 8, Delphi versions used years up until Embarcadero nixed years for XE.

Since you confirmed that Embarcadero's Delphi XE2 actually is Delphi to you too, your claim

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:You are half way there, but Delphi is a native code compiler and does not compile to .NET.

This is incorrect. Delphi was native only in the old days. When Delphi 8 was released in 2003 it was .NET only. Delphi 9 was .NET and native executables. Codegear bought it and literally destroyed the product and staggered the .NET and native EXE releases. Then Embarcadero bought the remains and moved .NET to Delphi Prism and have done all they can to destroy what CoderGear left.

is plain and simply wrong because the current Delphi XE2 from Embarcadero isnt really "from the old days".

It doesnt get much simpler and anybody can just read back to verify that.

My pastings from the Embarcadero website in the Delphi and Firemonkey FAQ's later, where simply to show that this claim from you was wrong. Please read this closely, i said "pastings from the Embarcadero website" and refered to the currently commercially supported Delphi compilers (not some outdated crap sold on ebay) - before you start lecturing me again that "old versions of Delphi where able to compile to .NET and 'i' said they wherent". These are citations from the Embarcadero website about Delphi XE2 and Firemonkey (as i said repeatedly now). This does NOT mean at all that Embarcadero or me claim that this also applies to any other previously written Delphi compiler.

Ramihyn_ wrote:Apple has said the same and even tried to enforce it sometimes in the past, but while they made a big fuss in the public and acted all tough about this, new applications where regularly added to their app store which where developed in other languages.

As has been discussed on this forum before, Apple NEVER said apps could not be written using other languages. They said apps had to be compiled using their language. There is a huge difference between the two.

All apps approved by Apple are compiled with the official tools, there is no other way to get the apps accepted. The other programming language merely acts as a translator/preprocessor and outputs the code into the allowable form.

Ramihyn_ wrote:into this against the fact that it doesnt make any sense at all.

It makes no sense because of your unfamiliarity with the product. You are the one who stated: "Delphi is a native code compiler and does not compile to .NET." Those are your words, not mine. I merely pointed out your mistake and informed you that people are using Delphi every day for .NET development.

Ramihyn_ wrote:Since you confirmed that Embarcadero's Delphi XE2 actually is Delphi to you too, your claim

Delphi is Delphi, it can never be anything else.

Ramihyn_ wrote:is plain and simply wrong because the current Delphi XE2 from Embarcadero isnt really "from the old days".

It doesn't get much simpler and anybody can just read back to verify that.

Correct, if you go back and read, you will see that I have explained to you that Embarcadero removed the .NET support and moved it to Delphi Prism/Prism. I explain that the current version does not support .NET and you say I am wrong, but you say the current version doesn't support .NET and you are right. I guess you think it just sounds better when you say it.

Ramihyn_ wrote:the currently commercially supported Delphi compilers (not some outdated crap sold on ebay)

Obviously, it is not outdated if people are still using it daily to support current platforms. As to it being crap, you might want to avoid using the Embarcadero versions of Delphi. Embarcadero has gone to great lengths to undo some of the damage done to Delphi by adding .NET support and try and gain back developers who are still using that "outdated crap".

This thread was split away from the original discussion by a Mod, so the initial context is lost. Due to a really "unfortunate" thread title now (referencing the "Prism" product and .NET), this whole discussion probably makes no sense at all to people who didnt read the original thread.

I will just say again, that i never refered to the product called "Prism" which is sold by Embarcadero, but actually uses a compiler from a different company which generates .NET/IL code.

But the thread split had one good effect, i was baffled why a mod would misinterprete this to be a discussion about Prism or (outdated) .NET Delphi versions which are not currently commercially supported or sold anymore. So i re-read the beginning of the whole discussion and wondered what went wrong and actually got an idea.

I guess part of the initial confusion is due to a communication problem.

Kuron wrote:

Ramihyn_ wrote:You are half way there, but Delphi is a native code compiler and does not compile to .NET.

This is incorrect. Delphi was native only in the old days. When Delphi 8 was released in 2003 it was .NET only. Delphi 9 was .NET and native executables. Codegear bought it and literally destroyed the product and staggered the .NET and native EXE releases. Then Embarcadero bought the remains and moved .NET to Delphi Prism and have done all they can to destroy what CoderGear left.

The sentence

Kuron wrote:Delphi was native only in the old days.

and a different interpretation of what it actually says, is probably the reason why this discussion began.

This is how i have read it all the time (notice the inserted comma):

Delphi was native, only in the old days.

Which would mean that "Current Delphi versions are not generating native code.". Obviously this would be wrong, as the currently sold Delphi XE2 product from Embarcadero only creates native code and not .NET/IL code. Though my native language isnt english, i talk a lot with friends from the US and when they refer to something happening in the past (several years ago), they often use the phrase "back in the old days" or "in the old days".

Now i guess Kuron actually used that sentence differently and as an introduction to his "history of Delphi" paragraph.

Delphi was native only, in the old days.

(notice the different punctation)

A missing comma which maybe gave the sentence a very different meaning to each of us.

My initial posting was talking about the Embarcadero Delphi compiler, i explicitly refer to the Embarcadero R&D engineer who did this. The Prism compiler is actually not from Embarcadero, but from RemObjects.

Who wrote the compiler used in Embarcadero Prism?

The Oxygene compiler was written by RemObjects.

Source: http://embarcadero.com/products/prism/faq#42

RemObjects webpage is here
http://www.remobjects.com/

The Ogygene FAQ is here: http://wiki.oxygenelanguage.com/en/Main_Page

From the Oxygene FAQ by the creators of the compiler:
http://wiki.oxygenelanguage.com/en/Read ... e_for_.NET

I admit that it can be confusing, some pages of their Wiki even have old names. While the current Prism product is called "Prism XE2" (no Delphi reference anymore in the product name!), the previous version was sold as "Delphi Prism XE" and the Embarcadero people call the language "Delphi-alike" or "Pascal-based programming language".

Prism => Oxygene compiler (several references in the Prism FAQ from Embarcadero)
http://embarcadero.com/products/prism/faq#5

Delphi and Oxygene are NOT the same though:
http://wiki.oxygenelanguage.com/en/Delphi_vs._Oxygene

You can find several references from Embarcadero and RemObjects where they try to make that clear and i use their terminology. The history of the "object pascal called Delphi", is confusing enough - even Oxygene had a different name originally.

When i pasted from "the Embarcadero Delphi FAQ", those pastings included the product name "Delphi XE2" and i hope this whole misunderstanding is cleared up by now. I "think" everything should be cleared up now, but maybe my interpretion of the miscommunication at the beginning, is wrong though it currently makes sense to me.

And just to make sure, i will end this with

I never talked about Prism! *shrugs*

Ramihyn_ wrote:

Kuron wrote:Delphi was native only in the old days.

and a different interpretation of what it actually says, is probably the reason why this discussion began.

No comma needed. It was missing a hyphen: Delphi was native-only in the old days.

I have 20/200 vision. I can't see the hyphen was missing unless I use my zoom program to view the screen. I usually don't use my zoom program on this computer because it tends to choke the Atom (its a nettop) to a crawl. That said, "native only" is a very common expression and anybody with programming experience would have known what it meant with or without a hyphen.