Why people prefer VB.NET or C# instead of Delphi?

[Shaggy Hiker]

Thanks Shaggy for your post. I am a strong Delphi supporter but I am not biased. I gave .Net a chance from a technical perspective and it only strengthened my support of Delphi. I don't need to be elaborately experienced in .Net to make a correct choice, there are just some key points to consider and not the whole mammoth of .Net. There was one point about .Net that I saw better than Delphi and that it has the ability to compile for the specific CPU it is running on, Delphi has to make a general compile and this can make .Net faster. In fact I would consider .Net for computationally intensive tasks, I don't have a bias towards Delphi that would cause me to evade .nets strengths. My arguments for Delphi are strictly technical, thats how I compare them and I do so without prejudice.

Actually, everybody is biased. If you prefer A over B, then you have a bias. Perhaps the only people who are not biased would be those who hate both A and B with a white-hot passion, but that's just a different kind of bias. It's how we work, and it's actually necessary for our being able to function. You simply don't have enough time to fully compare two things as complex as a pair of programming languages in anything close to a comprehensive fashion, so you look at a few things and let bias do the rest. If you didn't work this way, you'd still be standing in your bedroom trying to decide what to wear until you starved to death.

The point is more to recognize your bias than to deny it. After all, your bias is just as likely to be right, anyways. In my case, I started with ASM and C++. The advantages of C++ over ASM were pretty clear. I then got into VB for work (VB5...sort of), and saw the advantages of that over C++, especially back in the pre-ANSI days where every C++ compiler did something different because none were fully compliant. That left me biased towards VB, but there were things I strongly disliked about VB. The biggest thing, oddly enough, was that it didn't really do Object Oriented. Secondarily was the inability to handle threading.

Once .NET came out, my bias for VB kept me from even looking at it for a couple years. Eventually, I found a problem that VB6 couldn't handle (PDA programming), so I was forced to .NET. At that point, I realized that it had all the features I wanted, and a FAR better IDE, too. It really is OO, it supports multithreading quite well, and so on. There are still some drawbacks, such as the fact that all mathematical calculations are equal. That shouldn't be. Integer division should be FAR slower than integer addition, but in .NET it is not. Therefore, .NET puts a limit on how much performance optimization you can do. However, .NET has no problem calling dll functions written in C/C++, so there is a way around that limitation, if needed.

So, I have it all and I have my bias, too. There may very well be tools out there that are better. Some folks on here are pusing Android and getting away from Windows and any such language. Perhaps they are right. But I have excellent tools to construct the programs I want to the level I want to construct them (unless MS really does drop all graphics such as XNA from .NET), which is a pretty high level. What possible reason would I have to not go with my preference? That's a bias, to be sure, but is it wrong?

[billegge]

Well I can't speak to that since I've never used Delphi so I'd leave that to those who have experience with it.



Just wow....This is really getting old. "MS the big evil corporation"...You seemed like a reasonable individual until now. Do you and the other countless people spouting this have any clue how this comes across ? Think guys in tin-foil hats. MS is successful because they did more things right than they did wrong. .Net is one of those things they did right. If you ever used .Net you'd see why it is such a big deal. The .Net Framework itself is extremely powerful and their flagship IDE for development of .Net programs leaves little in wanting.

Reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Hejlsberg

You have never used, and I will guess, you never seen Delphi nor know its origins and thus do not know the origins of .Net. That greatness you give to .Net belongs to Delphi, what you are seeing is a copy of Delphi. File New... NT Service, Application, Console application, ActiveX library, Web Application, DLL Library, .. in neat little icons - sound familiar? Thats Delphi since its beginning. Anders Hejlsberg built Delphi, then MSoft took all the talent from Borland through offering huge sign on bonuses - millions - then .Net was started by Anders which came out to be a merge of Java and Delphi. I would really call .Net the Delphi version of Java.

[billegge]

Just wow....This is really getting old. "MS the big evil corporation"...You seemed like a reasonable individual until now.

http://goo.gl/DXtQo

[billegge]

Shaggy, had you went to Delphi instead of VB you would have had everything you wanted. It was better than VB and had the power and speed of C++.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Shaggy, had you went to Delphi instead of VB you would have had everything you wanted. It was better than VB and had the power and speed of C++.

Everything...except a job.

By the way, why do you say it was better than VB? So far, a few people (such as the, now-absent, OP) have stated this, but they don't point to anything in particular. There have been some vague statements about speed, but that's meaningless. Very few people ever write anything where speed matters. I have written one or two things, but not many things, and speed wasn't really all that important to the few things I wrote, either. Speed mostly matters for some types of graphics, which I almost never use (except for my recent foray into XNA).

Frankly, I see so few flaws in .NET that I'm not sure what the comparison would be.

[JuggaloBrotha]

Shaggy, had you went to Delphi instead of VB you would have had everything you wanted. It was better than VB and had the power and speed of C++.

Out of 2 pages of posts, I've seen you say this numerous times, yet you haven't even began to show any proof or findings of anything you've said. No syntax or construct comparisons, no performance comparisons, no benchmarks, nothing.

I could claim vb6 is far superior to .Net all I want, but it's just hearsay until someone actually shows findings that vb6 really is better than .Net, which is all I'm getting from all of your "Delphi is better" comments, it's just hearsay, no sustenance to back any of it up.

For the record, I find .Net to be far better than vb6, I just used vb6 vs .Net as an example.

[Niya]

You have never used, and I will guess, you never seen Delphi nor know its origins....

I had an encounter in my teens with its ancestor, Pascal. At the time I was writing code in QuickBasic Extended. I remember very clearly how superior it was to QuickBasic. I had the source code for a map editor for Wolfenstein which was written in Pascal. The functionality this map editor had could not be replicated in QuickBasic. If we were talking about this in those times, you would hear no argument from me. But we have come a very long way since then.

That greatness you give to .Net belongs to Delphi, what you are seeing is a copy of Delphi. File New... NT Service, Application, Console application, ActiveX library, Web Application, DLL Library, .. in neat little icons - sound familiar? Thats Delphi since its beginning. Anders Hejlsberg built Delphi, then MSoft took all the talent from Borland through offering huge sign on bonuses - millions - then .Net was started by Anders which came out to be a merge of Java and Delphi. I would really call .Net the Delphi version of Java.

Consider Linux which evolved from Unix.
Consider Winsock which is based on Berkley's sockets on Unix.
Consider OS/2 and Windows shares the same code base.
Consider JavaScript in modern browsers was created my the makers of the ancient Netscape Navigator web browser.
Consider Delphi itself is a modern descendant of Pascal which was not created by Anders Hejlsberg but by Niklaus Emil Wirth.

My point is, what you're saying is common practice in the industry. Nothing would get done if everyone tried to re-invent the wheel. Every piece of popular software today has cannibalized parts from older proven software. Pascal is proven. I'm not gonna argue that.

Btw...The greatness of .Net belongs to Anders Hejlsberg not Delphi. .Net and Delphi are ideas made material. It just happens that .Net won out.

[FunkyDexter]

one side says Delphi is good and lists technical reasons like the person who started this thread then the other side are those talking about availability of jobs

I'd mostly agree with that except I'd argue that the second site is talking about business pragmatism rather than just the availability of jobs. It's a subtle difference but an important one since it's the business that will usually decide on which tech is used rather than the job-hunter.

The point you seem to be missing is that the former's arguments don't matter. Having the best technology is great... in a toy. A Ferarri is a wonderful thing to own... but Toyota post much larger profits every year than Ferarri do. From a business perspective what you want is large user bases not technical niceties. So if you want to program toys in Dephi, go ahead.

And by the way, none of this is based in fear, it's based in pragmatism.

[sapator]

Comparing Toyota to Ferrari, tsk tsk

[alcalde]

Billegge I'm familiar with Delphi and would love to hear your technical case for its use today over Java, C#, C++, Python, Ruby. I'd also love to hear any corresponding case you may have for VCL or FireMonkey over .Net/Mono or Qt. Embarcadero themselves fail to make it on their web page (absolutely no comparison to other products).

Keep in mind that the next issue after technical merits comes whether it can justify its price tag, with it being possible to develop in all of the languages listed above for free. That means Delphi needs to bring $1000+ more value to the table.. and that's before we want to do things like access client/server databases, which can add another $500 to the price tag.

And then we can get into what you don't seem to want to talk about, which is the environment/ecosystem - jobs, books, courses, third party libraries, conferences, etc. available for Delphi vs. .Net, Java, the scripting languages, etc.

You may find that Delphi isn't really the answer to all our problems you suggest it is. You may discover it doesn't hold much value outside of a few niche areas today.

[christinemiller414]

Hey!
Delphi doesn't require a huge framework to be installed for applications to work. Your compiled result is your application. In C#, all the 3rd party components have to be included and some even have to be registered in the GAC (That on its own is a problem).

[Niya]

Hey!
Delphi doesn't require a huge framework to be installed for applications to work. Your compiled result is your application. In C#, all the 3rd party components have to be included and some even have to be registered in the GAC (That on its own is a problem).

Delphi requires a "huge" OS to be installed....what's your point exactly ?

[DataMiser]

Personally I have never looked into Delphi and have not known anyone who uses it at all. I have used a few languages in my day but mostly versions of Basic. Aside from the various versions of Basic I have built apps with Turbo Pascal, Turbo C, Visual C++, C# and a few scripting languages. In terms of Basic I have used Timex Basic, Commodore Basic, IBM Basic, GWBasic, VBDos, VB3,4,5,6, VB.Net 2003,2005,2008,2010 and others include C# 2003,2005,2008,2010.

Since most of my coding has been done in a form of Basic over the years it is just easier to code most things in some version of Basic. I typically only go to another language when the project calls for it.

[esposito]

Delphi requires a "huge" OS to be installed....what's your point exactly ?

Apart from that, the latest versions of Delphi produce executables that are enormous because they also compile all the libraries needed for the Unicode support. There's no way you can remove the Unicode stuff from the final exe, even if you don't use it. That's why I'm still sticking with an old version of Delphi that produces executables that are much smaller in size.

[Niya]

Apart from that, the latest versions of Delphi produce executables that are enormous because they also compile all the libraries needed for the Unicode support. There's no way you can remove the Unicode stuff from the final exe, even if you don't use it. That's why I'm still sticking with an old version of Delphi that produces executables that are much smaller in size.

Actually I didn't know that. I was being cheeky with that comment. I was trying to illustrate that crying about runtimes is practically the same as crying about needing to install an OS on your PC. No application is truly free of runtime constraints. I mean if you get a new PC with a blank HD, you don't complain about having to install Windows so why complain about installing runtimes.

[esposito]

Actually I didn't know that. I was being cheeky with that comment. I was trying to illustrate that crying about runtimes is practically the same as crying about needing to install an OS on your PC. No application is truly free of runtime constraints. I mean if you get a new PC with a blank HD, you don't complain about having to install Windows so why complain about installing runtimes.

Yes, I had figured that out that you were being sarcastic and my comment was meant to emphasize that, if on the one hand the Delphi executable does not need any runtime files, on the other hand it is so big that it gets you as upset as the .Net Framework does.

[Niya]

Err..I see. You were being cheeky too lol.

My point still stands. The .Net framework is part of the OS. Complaining about its size makes no sense at all since the rest of the OS overshadows it, you might as well complain about all those pesky Dlls in System32, you know, the ones that Windows installs so it can work. Delphi making small EXEs is neutral in any debate about weather its better or worse than .Net.

[DataMiser]

The bigger exe would be an issue for many, should be for all. In the case of the runtimes say you have 100 exes on your PC that use the RT the RT is large but the exes are small where those that compile the RT into the exe need no RT but the exes are large and you end up using 90x more HD space for the same 100 programs. Not to mention that it takes longer to download each and every one of them.

[kareninstructor]

I used Delphi (version 1-5) for many years, .NET is better now.

[jmcilhinney]

Hey!
Delphi doesn't require a huge framework to be installed for applications to work. Your compiled result is your application. In C#, all the 3rd party components have to be included and some even have to be registered in the GAC (That on its own is a problem).

It's very rare that anything HAS to be installed in the GAC. For a simple client app, NEVER. Installing something in the GAC is a way to make it available to multiple applications. You could just as easily give each of those applications their own copy the DLL. Even if you do want to install something in the GAC, why is that a problem? Any installer can do that without breaking a sweat.

[esposito]

The bigger exe would be an issue for many, should be for all. In the case of the runtimes say you have 100 exes on your PC that use the RT the RT is large but the exes are small where those that compile the RT into the exe need no RT but the exes are large and you end up using 90x more HD space for the same 100 programs. Not to mention that it takes longer to download each and every one of them.

I agree. That's why I'm sill using Delphi 2005 (which produces very small exes) and have no intention to switch to one of the latest versions in the foreseeable future.

[dilettante]

My point still stands. The .Net framework is part of the OS.

Wishing doesn't make it so.

Yes, beginning in Vista Microsoft began shipping chunks of various versions of .Net along with the OS and marking them as unrepairable system components.

How to repair the .NET Framework 2.0 and 3.0 on Windows Vista

Synopsis: When it's really broken it can't be repaired and you must reinstall Windows.

Yes, beginning in Vista Microsoft replaced a few Control Panel applets with .Net versions. And when .Net breaks they won't run.

Yes, Microsoft ships security patches for .Net on every month's "patch Tuesday" and everyone needs to pay the high .Net tax now because of the silly "install it with the OS" philosophy. The patches for the giant attack surface known as .Net generally dwarf monthly patches to the actual OS. Sounds more like grounds for a class action lawsuit than anything else.


But .Net remains a foreign layer on top of Windows, little different from using something like Java. The only difference is you have to pay the penalty even if you don't use it. The force-feeding just means you get to download a couple hundred MB in security fixes every month now. Before that you downloaded a couple hundred MB to support your first .Net program and then pretended .Net was secure - but you had the choice of keeping it off your machines.

.Net is more like forced bloatware OEMs stick on PCs, and nothing like a part of Windows.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Such bitterness.

Let's see, when was the last time I paid any attention to what individual patches were and how many were .NET vs other parts of Windows? That wouldn't be never, but it has been a long time. Whenever you have an OS running the majority of systems, you have a huge attack surface. If one part is more prone than another, that's a matter of degree, at best.

So, what is it that would make you happy? VB6 also had a framework. It was smaller. If .NET compiled down to a smaller footprint, would that be enough to make you happy? Would you then embrace .NET as the wonderful new thing, or would you find something else to carp about? You'd still have security patches, and at about the same rate, though perhaps they might be somewhat smalller, so it's hard to believe that you would be satisfied with that. Would you prefer that MS abandon making any compilers for anything other than non-proprietary languages (nothing but C/C++ and MASM)?

I'd like to see .NET compiling to native code rather than IL, which would provide some advantage. You can get tools that do this, though I think they are all third party, but I also doubt that would make the anti-.NET people happy. I've always felt that the real motivation there was a dogged resistance to change, and all the rest is just excuses to justify the underlying emotion.

[dilettante]

I'd just prefer that Microsoft make it possible to remove .Net and to repair .Net on newer Windows versions. Then if I don't need it I also don't have to live with downloads of fixes each month that dwarf any other fixes by a factor of 50 to 100. If it breaks I can uninstall/reinstall to repair it without reinstalling Windows from scratch.

That doesn't seem liike too much to ask and it should be welcomed by .Net developers as well. After all, when .Net breaks nobody can run your programs.

[Niya]

I've always felt that the real motivation there was a dogged resistance to change, and all the rest is just excuses to justify the underlying emotion.

This is 100% true. When I resisted .Net, I had all the same ridiculous excuses. Truth was, I didn't want to throw away all the invested time learning all kinds of fancy hacks in VB6 over the years to start over as a total beginner in this new alien .Net world. But moving over was the best decision I ever made. Wish I had done it sooner. In hindsight, I realized that if I was serious about all the complaints I had about .Net, I would have moved to a language like C++. You could code directly against the OS hence no need for any runtimes.

Also, complaining about runtimes is quite a silly thing for a VB6 developer to do. I said this before in another thread: I remember being part of a modding community that staunchly refused to use most modding aids written in VB6 due to having to install a runtime. They would make exceptions for exceptional tools. Also, being a modding community means there are going to be some programmers around. All of 'em were C/C++ coders and all the smack that people talk about .Net runtimes, I've heard levied against VB6 over there and there wasn't any bitterness about it. It was more like fun mockery, you know, like a group of teens cracking jokes at a fat person passing by. However, the difference is their complaints were actually justified because even when they didn't complain about runtimes, their other complaints which largely pointed out how limited VB was, were quite justified. I mean you needed all kinds of weird antics to do things in VB6 that C++ programmers were taking for granted for ages. Its funny though. VB.Net actually addressed some of them, like threading. VB6 can't multi-thread worth a damn yet VB.Net could, something C++ implementations have been capable of for a long time....anyways....

So....what was that saying about pots and kettles ?

[dilettante]

I'm not sure how that defends the outrageous claim you made or does anything to help fix the "broken .Net" problem. You seem to be retreating to old tired arguments in an attempt to deflect the issues.


I have a customer with two Win7 systems right now where .Net is broken. None of the suggestions from the blog post I linked to have helped a bit. They have already reinstalled Windows on three other systems with the same problem, but haven't been ready to bite the bullet on the other two yet.

If you have a fix I'm all ears.

At least we found the culprit: a bad Inno Setup installer for a .Net application I replaced for them. The improved, faster, more elegant VB6 replacement has them happy but they'd like to see .Net fixed too.

[Niya]

I'm not sure how that defends the outrageous claim you made or does anything to help fix the "broken .Net" problem.

I'm not going to pretend I know what the problem is with those systems. It could be any number of a million things. I've seen PCs with every version of Windows do all manner or weirdness with causes ranging from faulty hardware to over zealous popup clickers that seem to install every thing that pops up on their screen from less than reputable websites.

You seem to be retreating to old tired arguments in an attempt to deflect the issues.

What tired arguments ?

I have a customer with two Win7 systems right now where .Net is broken. None of the suggestions from the blog post I linked to have helped a bit. They have already reinstalled Windows on three other systems with the same problem, but haven't been ready to bite the bullet on the other two yet.

If you have a fix I'm all ears.

At least we found the culprit: a bad Inno Setup installer for a .Net application I replaced for them. The improved, faster, more elegant VB6 replacement has them happy but they'd like to see .Net fixed too.

I've been using Win7 since it came out and I have never had a problem with .Net on it. But you know what I have seen give trouble with Win7 ? VB6 apps. Regularly too. Mostly installation problems. Libraries not registering properly, apps compiled on Win7 not working on XP and all kinds of weirdness.

Look, you guys wanna stick around in VB6, then more power you. If it works for you, fine. I'm glad for you guys. But yall really need to stop knocking .Net. At the end of the day, you all can throw tantrums all you like about .Net, it won't change the fact that its light-years ahead of now outdated VB6. Its just better all around. You all really need to stop with these .Net hate threads.

[dilettante]

Outrageous.

[Niya]

Now you know how I feel

[Shaggy Hiker]

I'm interested in this "broken .NET" thing. After all, I have numerous .NET apps running on a fair number of systems (dozens, perhaps hundreds, but not thousands (I think)). The OS are all either XP or 7. None of them have ever had any problem with .NET being broken. I'm also aware of a few hundred other systems running other .NET apps, and I don't know of .NET being broken on any of them. I've had a few issues with VB6 apps, but nothing that couldn't be solved easily, though I only have VB6 apps running on less than a dozen systems, currently (both XP and 7, though the apps have been around so long that they started on either 95 or 98, in an earlier incarnation).

I can understand wanting MS to not install something that breaks, but point me to that set of MS stuff that never breaks and is sufficient to still be called an OS? Aside from that, how do you know that you are not experiencing confirmation bias? That may seem like an impertinent question, but please keep in mind that I have been personally utterly burned by that in non-computational settings before. For example, I held a bogus theory for several years because of a slight systematic bias to the sampling of salinity in the Everglades, and I'm now a bit sensitive to bias. I certainly have no idea whether the security patches for .NET are larger, smaller, more numerous, rare as hens teeth, or anything else in relationship to other patches. Since you mentioned that, though, I've taken note of all (both, actually) of the security patches pushed out by MS, and neither had to do with .NET. That's a totally bogus sample size, but as my N gets larger, I should get a clearer picture. So how about .NET being broken? What's the sample size? What's the control against confirmation bias?

[Niya]

To be honest, I think all these "VB6 is better than VB.Net" threads are entirely grounded in confirmation bias. Having used both VB6 and VB.Net I cannot for the life of me, ever understand how people can make these ridiculous arguments that VB6 is better. I mean its obvious to me which is better. Its as obvious as night and day. Only confirmation bias can be responsible for any other conclusion.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah, but that bias has a name, too, though I forget what it is at the moment. It's the one where you expect that your views, being reasonable to you, would naturally be shared by the majority of your peers.

[Niya]

Hmmm...well confirmation bias is about only acknowledging information to support your own views which is what we find in a lot of these arguments. Although, there is a possibility that cognitive dissonance is also at play somewhere in these arguments as well. Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance usually go together like white on rice. Religious zealots are a perfect example of this. They intuitively seek out information to support their views. And they tend to react poorly when presented with arguments that competently show that their beliefs are a bunch of bronze age nonsense because it arouses cognitive dissonance in them. In fact, I believe that Christians are taught that people who criticize their beliefs are puppeteered by the Devil because of cognitive dissonance. They are encouraged to dismiss them. Its an effective way to avoid that unpleasant psychological condition.

[kareninstructor]

Just out of curiosity I went back and looked at some of my Delphi code (not really sure why I kept it). Still had some executables which still run perfectly. Also FWIW I wrote a few articles that are still online at the link below.

http://www.delphi-jedi.org/articles.html

[szlamany]

I'm not sure how that defends the outrageous claim you made or does anything to help fix the "broken .Net" problem. You seem to be retreating to old tired arguments in an attempt to deflect the issues.


I have a customer with two Win7 systems right now where .Net is broken. None of the suggestions from the blog post I linked to have helped a bit. They have already reinstalled Windows on three other systems with the same problem, but haven't been ready to bite the bullet on the other two yet.

If you have a fix I'm all ears.

At least we found the culprit: a bad Inno Setup installer for a .Net application I replaced for them. The improved, faster, more elegant VB6 replacement has them happy but they'd like to see .Net fixed too.

This is an argument for LIGHT client versus HEAVY client.

If installs on a client machine are a problem then go with a browser app and use all your .Net stuff on a server where it belongs.

I'm an old Digital VAX programmer from the 80's - go big iron. Dumb terminals all the way...

Translates into a browser app in the modern hardware realm...

Dependencies - 0

Headaches of it's own - Thousands !

[dilettante]

I'm interested in this "broken .NET" thing.

See the MS blog link I posted above. It is an acknowledged problem that can occasionally be resolved without reintalling Windows depending on what caused the breakage.

I certainly have no idea whether the security patches for .NET are larger, smaller, more numerous, rare as hens teeth, or anything else in relationship to other patches. Since you mentioned that, though, I've taken note of all (both, actually) of the security patches pushed out by MS, and neither had to do with .NET. That's a totally bogus sample size, but as my N gets larger, I should get a clearer picture. So how about .NET being broken? What's the sample size? What's the control against confirmation bias?

How can you be unaware of this? Every month Microsoft pushes a wrap-up of recent fixes in order to try to save users the pain of dealing with them day by day. Unless you have Windows Update set to just go ahead and update automatically you have plenty of opportunity to look at the patches to see whether one will cause you problems. The individual patches and their sizes are clearly visible there.

This isn't about a small sample size at all. It has been going on for many years, and each month it is a substantial number of patches of considerable size.


Just because you haven't entered your basement lately does not mean it isn't flooded. I fail to understand logic like "I never look at this, so it probably isn't true."

[Shaggy Hiker]

I have enough things to pay attention to that a few of them can be ignored. I've never had a problem with anything coming from Windows Update, so I don't spend any time examining them. Automatic Updates is on, too, so I don't examine them ahead of time for the most part.

[mels]

hi,

i am usind delphi since delphi 2.
well the answer to the first question about why people using delphi is very simple.
hey
majority of programmers are not so clever, they like easy things to win money, these kind of persons they have no idea about native languages but they just go around software houses pegging for jobs.

i am a rich man and i offer this to delphi . thanks delphi for that.
i hope people they keep using vb or othere languages so when they put the hands up beacuse they cannot do something then i am i a job.

thats the true.
99% are not so clever and this will never change.

keep coding

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I have read a lot and still can't understand why people prefer VB.NET or C# instead of Delphi? And why Delphi is losing popularity?

Wow yet another thread, on my computer language is better than your language!!!

But Delphi seriously?

Apart from being ludicrously expensive, it has a horrible IDE and unless you are a hobbiest, show me where the jobs are that require Delphi? because i cant find them.

And why is the job argument such a bad one for you? Jobs being available is surely a key reason for a lot of people choosing a language to learn, unless you don't want a job as a programmer?

I am like you, I don't know why either. I tried .Net and could not make a DLL you can only call one, I tried to make an ISAPI app and found that it has to be a ASPX plugin into IIS of some kind. I am baffled why people use .Net.

What is also strange is that they seem not to care what Delphi is.

That's because you are doing it wrong. Creating com aware dll's in .Net is simple. Really really simple and yes they can be called by VB6, C++, Delphi or any other language that can call com dll's.

If you struggled with a simple task like this you clearly did not spend enough time or effort on it!

When one person argues about technology the other could care less. So, if someone uses VB I would predict that they don't use it for technological reasons and that whatever reason I say why you should use Delphi would be irrelevant to you.

Rubbish, there are plenty of technological reasons to use .Net, but you have to realise that the thing you want from a programming language will be different then what i want.

For instance Native compile doesn't matter to me at all in any way what so ever, where as have a great IDE does matter and the .Net Visual Studio (probably almost any version) kicks the ass of the Delphi IDE.

Your position is based on anxiety and fear. Fear of not finding a programmer, fear of losing support. You even pointed out you did not care if Delphi was faster than .Net or easier to program in.

I see a lot of this attitude and I wonder what is going on in the world, where fear dominates.

Again you are making assumptions based upon your own wants and needs. FD was pointing out as someone who works for a Software House what matters to him about a language. This has nothing to do with fear, it has to do with wanting to use the tools that best allows him to do his job to the clients satisfaction. If he was perversely to ignore his clients wishes completely then his company would soon lose all its clients.

And some of you might say the client doesn't care what language is use to build a product, but this just isn't true. Clients do care if you are using a language that THEY consider legacy i have been at companies that have lost clients because they didn't move with times.

Many Clients actually want .net specifically for business applications (it seems to matter more in some industries than others),and FD must factor that in.

Also .NET as far as i am concerned has allowed ME to produce modern looking applications of good quality quicker then i could before and i suspect it is the same for FD and many others. A lot of .net programmers find this, which is one of the reasons why there are so many of us. It may not be the case for everybody but it is for us.

I am a strong Delphi supporter but I am not biased. I gave .Net a chance from a technical perspective and it only strengthened my support of Delphi. I don't need to be elaborately experienced in .Net to make a correct choice

Based on your posts you are biased !! you just don't realise it !

It shouldn't be a battle, about which is the best as there is no correct answer. Whats good for you may not be good for me.

Delphi is not inherently a better language then .Net or anything else. It might be best for you, or for a certain situation and that is about the best you can say.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Outrageous.

Now you know how I feel

haha you too are as bad as each other.