February 24, 2006
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
In a talkback about an unrelated post, a reader (Nikola) suggests abandoning Delphi for an open source tool like FreePascal/Lazarus claiming it is impossible to sell an IDE if you have to compete with a monopolist (Microsoft) and many other existing free offerings. In short, I disagree, but the issue deserves a longer answer.
Let's first examine why open source softare exists. There are many reasons. Many OS projects were started by groups of developers with a common need (for example, GNU/Linux). Other OS projects are totally abandoned proprietary tools the users community keeps working on (like InstantObjects in the Delphi components world). In other cases, the owner open sources a software to get it out of a small niche and plans to live on consulting, training services, and possibly a high-end version of the tool (there are many examples!). Finally, another category is that of software aimed to clone an existing paid offering that is monopolistic, too expensive, not responding to user needs (MS Office vs. Open Office come to mind). Far from being exhaustive or complete, this gives you a starting point for discussing.
Will Delphi fall in any of these categories? Right now, no. Could the NewCo open source it and live from services? I really doubt? Can we all help building a Delphi clone because Borland/NewCO is monopolistic not driven by user needs? I disagree, but opinions can vary. Certainly compiling Object Pascal to new platforms (like the Mac) is something only FreePascal supports right now. Is sofware development a Microsoft monopoly? Absolutely not, with tons of other languages and tools widely used (from Java to scripting languages to the only Win32 development tool left, Delphi!).
Of course, to draw any conclusion we'll have to see who buys Delphi or if a new company is formed (something "detractors" seems to downplay but I see as the best future for Delphi). We'll judge on facts, but for now I'll keep supporting Borland Delphi with my books, articles, and work. My clients use it and need help on it. Period.
There is an interesting scenario I've mentioned in my "Delphi dream" post. A community driven IDE. Delphi 2005 and 2006 have benefitted from contributions from the community in areas like routines optimization in which Borland has decided not to invest, but the FastCode project has decided to put a lot of effort. This could become more and more relevant in the future, but is already now. There are tons of third part components, libraries, IDE plugin, you can use to customize Delphi they way you need it. The community is working today and has worked for years to make Delphi a better tool. It has supported niche usages Borland has not reason to go after. Let's Borland/NewCo build the compiler (and move it to other platofmrs) and the core of the IDE, and we'll keep providing added value on top of this base infrastructure. The infrastructure should be properly priced (and a free GPL version would be nice), use a subscription model, revived, etc.
I think we still need a bunch of top-notch engineers paid for their great work, like those sitting on their desks in Scott's Valley working on 2006 patches and Highlander while we blog and chat about the product they build and we use. Long live Delphi!
11 Comments
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
I could write a long comment here but I'll just say this: The idea of open sourcing Delphi is easily one of the four silliest ideas I've heard in the last ten years. One of the other ones is deep fried Snickers bars.Comment by Nick Hodges [http://www.lemanix.com/nickblog] on February 24, 17:11
What about a little trade?
I totally agree with Marco and Luigi, and I think a solid community can do (and has already done) a lot of good things, as seen in the "FastCode project". As I said in the title, what about a little "trade" between the Delphi community and the new DevCo? The community will do its best to provide support, materials, source and other stuff; the new DevCo, in exchange for that, should give documentation, articles, discounts on buying Delphi magazines, organize usergroup meetings (and put a little money in it) and other services and facilities to let members spread the "Delphi word" and produce good software, which is always a real proof of a development tool potential. Delphi has a huge and really passionate community: I think Delphi can be profitable for DevCo if the company understands that you have to work on it, for it and with it! Bye, Marco.Comment by Marco Breveglieri [http://www.marco.breveglieri.name] on February 24, 17:48
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
"Finally, another category is that of software aimed to clone an existing paid offering that is monopolistic, too expensive, not responding to user needs" how come Delphi didn't come to mind there? Delphi 8 and Delphi 2005 costed probably ten times more (at least) than the actual value of the product. And how exactly did Delphi 8 respond to the user needs? by coming out with another version that you had to buy? how was that not expensive? it would be interesting to know how many customers who bought Delphi 8, also bought Delphi 2005 (and now Delphi 2006 because the other two versions were not good) I am not saying that Delphi should go open source, but your point there was really weakComment by Eber Irigoyen [http://ebersys.blogspot.com] on February 24, 19:37
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
Eber, Delphi 8 was aimed at Delphi developers interested in .NET development. It responded to their needs, not those of the Win32 Delphi developers. I disagree that Delphi 2005 costs ten times more than its value. You don't need to buy the highest SKU and should consider upgrade prices. And I don't understand "a version you had to buy". You can choose to buy a version of Delphi or not... When I wrote that, anyway, I know that some Delphi users have that perception, including the post taht triggered my blog entry. I can understand, but I feel free to disagree.Comment by Marco Cantù [http://www.marcocantu.com] on February 25, 00:44
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
IMHO "Delphi" 8, CBuilder X and a few others (including D2005 bad quality) were bad decisions taken by the Borland management, and demonstrate that they would have needed to listen to their "community" better instead of being actracted by a few large orders, and without looking outside USA. I am sure Delphi and CBuilder should be available on different platforms, but that was not the way, especially when they disappointed the current "cash cows" while chasing butterflies in some dead ends. And I am afraid that "Open Source Delphi" just means "free Delphi" to many people - I do not need a "free tool", I need a "great tool". I understand hobbyists and students, they should understand the professional developers too - price is not always the only decision parameter.Comment by Luigi D. Sandon on February 25, 21:01
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
Well since I heard mentioned before that e.g. Skype was programmed with Delphi. Then I suppose Skype/Ebay should have an interest in supporting Delphi and they are not really poor. If they could pay that much for Skype then it might be worth supporting further development of Delphi?Comment by Mats on February 26, 19:19
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
I think that the situation is not going to be good for Delphi. Object Pascal, although my favorite one, is a very weak player in the field of programming languages. And the open source world is a little biased with C++. So, i believe that if a company buys the department and wants to invest in the glorious VCL (be it Open Source or Commercial), it will be do so for the C++ Builder product, not Delphi...Comment by objectref on February 27, 12:44
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
"Finally, another category is that of software aimed to clone an existing paid offering that is monopolistic, too expensive, not responding to user needs (MS Office vs. Open Office come to mind)." Just for clarity sake. FPC/Lazarus definitely falls into this category. It started when it didn't exist a Delphi for Linux, it almost stopped when Kylix was first released and it rewamped when Kylix was abandoned. I don't think that making Delphi OpenSource could help NewCo, unless they will be so wellfounded that they could afford to lose a lot of money for some years, just to let an OpenSource Delphi to gain market. As a matter of fact a very good closed Ide could compete with opensource ones, IntelliJ is an example but there are many others for Python and Php. But it has to be very cheap or a lot better than OS ones.Comment by Uberto on February 27, 13:19
Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
What made Delphi a winner? It was 1000 times better than VB, and many times more productive than any C++ environment, except perhaps Borland's. In the Win32 environment this is still true. If Delphi is to win in the ASP.NET world it will have to do a better, simpler, faster job than VS 2005, else people will stick with VB.NET or C#, even though VS 2005 is far from perfect. Delphi should be able to rule the Win32 platform for a while, but it will need to become the best development tool for the new platforms that are coming.Comment by steve burch on February 27, 23:33
Delphi Open Source or Community Driven?
Uberto wrote: "Just for clarity sake. FPC/Lazarus definitely falls into this category. It started when it didn't exist a Delphi for Linux, it almost stopped when Kylix was first released and it rewamped when Kylix was abandoned." This is totally nonsense. Not one single bit is true. FPC originates not in Delphi, but in Turbo Pascal, and ran for years on Linux (1994-5) before the first Delphi compability was added(1997-1998), which in turn was long before Kylix came out. None of the FPC core stopped when Kylix came out (and actually nearly all 1997 members are still with the project now). This is partially also because when Kylix 3 came out, FPC already supported 20 platforms in total, and the PPC - OS/X support was coming. It never adapted many Kylix improvements because it was clear from the start that Kylix was too linux/x86 centric (and then even certain kernel versions). The "Revamp" never happened. It is true however that since +/- 2005 the project grows a lot faster rate. This is mostly due to fact that the Delphi compability started to work well enough to start compiling reasonably clean (or cleanable) Delphi codebases without many modifications, and Lazarus coming of age. Nothing of which had to do with Kylix.Comment by Marco van de Voort on December 2, 16:48
Post Your Comment
Click here for posting your feedback to this blog.
There are currently 0 pending (unapproved) messages.

Delphi: Open Source or Community Driven?
Comment by Luigi D. Sandon on February 24, 14:27