This forum is deprecated.
David Millington (Senior Product Manager), Atanas Popov (General Manager, Developer Tools), Kyle Wheeler (General Manager, C++)
Over the past year, we have had many customers ask about our plans to continue cross-platform multi-device support in C++Builder. We’d like to provide an update on our plans.
We prioritized VCL work for C++Builder to FMX, which puts us behind on our support on platform support. Currently, C++Builder 10.4 supports:
Those most impacted should already know the following, but to be clear: On August 1, Google’s deadline for 32-bit applications will come into effect and if you want to continue to update your apps on the Play Store, you will need to recompile them as Android 64-bit. C++Builder does not currently support this platform. We will not deliver Android 64-bit support by August 1st, nor in C++Builder 10.4.1 (2020.)
It’s worth noting that 32-bit Android applications are still fully functional - in fact, we released a hotfix to 10.4 solving C++ Android 32-bit exception handling issues a few days ago. Android devices still support 32-bit apps; it is only the Play Store that has the 64-bit limitation, meaning that in-house applications or sideloaded applications remain fully functional.
We also have not scheduled macOS 64-bit support for 2020. When we do, we will likely move directly to support ARM (Apple Silicon.)
If Android 64-bit is important to you, RAD Studio with Delphi is fully compatible. Contact us today to discuss a discount and make the switch.
In March 2019, we sent out a customer survey. The overall feedback from our C++Builder customers in that survey was to ask us to focus on Windows and Windows quality: compiler quality, STL, and IDE (including code completion.)
The majority of our C++Builder customers are targeting Windows only, using the VCL. They do so because of VCL’s performance and the native controls, and the new controls we provide; further, Microsoft has created pressure to upgrade to Windows 10 and our Windows 10 support is highly useful to those migrating apps, or to those looking for a high-quality UI app environment for Windows 10.
The strategy this put us on was clear: to focus on Windows and ensure it met your expectations, ahead of working on other platforms. For this reason, we removed macOS Catalina support from the roadmap, and we have been working on Windows quality ahead of Android 64-bit support since then.
We are very aware that since our Clang upgrade in November 2018, the quality for Windows, including IDE tooling, has not been what we want to deliver.
So what’s our plan? What are we addressing?
We have long-standing issues around code completion, the linker, some STL classes, and some compiler ICEs. Further, there are IDE productivity features we want to provide to ensure C++Builder surpasses other IDEs in terms of productivity. Our goal for Windows is the following:
The ultimate aim here is to ensure that (a) things work as you want and expect, and (b) we are both compatible with general C++ (which helps you) and surpass other tools in productivity. Our libraries, like the VCL, are world-leading -- having IDE productivity also at that level will make C++Builder a significant force.
While we are not there yet, that strategy explains our focus and what we have delivered since that survey. Let’s dig into both what we have delivered, and what we have planned, with some comments that explain them in light of the above.
In the time since that survey, we have delivered:
In future, we plan to deliver:
Our C++Builder customers have asked us to focus on Windows and quality, and that’s what we’re doing. We are focusing on providing high-quality Windows development for you, especially with a focus on IDE productivity to match our existing UI productivity, as well as resolving important issues. This does mean that we will not have Android 64-bit or macOS support in the short-term (6-9 month) timeframe. However, we are working on - and have delivered - some important improvements to Windows already. Further items, like Visual Assist integration, are exciting for making C++Builder lead ahead of other IDE’s productivity. We understand that this prioritization may impact some of you negatively for which we apologize. We feel that focusing on quality and Windows is the right thing today to ensure we give you the product you want and need.
Once we are confident in the quality enhancements and feature set for Windows development we will reevaluate the landscape and take appropriate steps to address other platforms and features. Stay tuned for upcoming releases and stay in touch with other feedback or requests!
Note: These plans and roadmap represent our intentions as of this date, but our development plans and priorities are subject to change. Accordingly, we can’t offer any commitments or other forms of assurance that we’ll ultimately release any or all of the described products on the schedule or in the order described, or at all. These general indications of development schedules or “product roadmaps” should not be interpreted or construed as any form of a commitment, and our customers’ rights to upgrades, updates, enhancements and other maintenance releases will be set forth only in the applicable software license agreement.
Reduce development time and get to market faster with RAD Studio, Delphi, or C++Builder. Design. Code. Compile. Deploy.
Start Free Trial
Free Delphi Community Edition
Free C++Builder Community Edition
It is all well and good having a whizzy IDE that increases productivity, but it is of little use if I can't deploy my projects to the Play Store or have them run on MacOS. As for offering discounted prices for Delphi to bridge the gap - if I wanted to use Delphi, I would be doing so already!
This is typical of Embarcadero - promise the earth and deliver nothing.
Sorry I hit Enter too soon...
I remember the survey we all took one year ago. It was about what kind of projects are you currently working on, what platform (Windows, Android, etc..), what features or libraries you would eventually need in some next tool evolution, what you think it would be mandatory to have and of course what you don't like about it or what you think it should be absolutely improved. Well, that's what a survey asks.
I am primarily a Windows applications developer and I use C++ Builder for all our projects (from desktop apps to dlls, local and REST services). Now this is of course what I also put in the survey, as well as my concerns about IDE productivity issues (or lacks) and something more. Honestly, that was the most important thing to me at that time.Anyway, at the time the survey came out, if compared to Delphi, Linux Server compiler was the real and only big thing missing in C++ Builder.
That, as an example, was one of the things I would expect to become available soon after a new release, and that's what I guess I put on the survey, not because I was in the middle of a Linux project, but because moving to Linux our REST services (built with C++ Builder) was one of our management requests.
Another "nice to have" thing we were planning was the ability to move some of our Windows Desktop tools to tablet, but due to our limited "developers task force" we had to postpone this tasks to a near future.I would never imagine that the survey would have a such catastrophic drawback on our future developments.
I appreciate a lot the fact that Embarcadero is trying to leverage on quality of the tools (i.e. fix the features already available before implementing new ones), because there is nothing worst than an I.C.E. on a project that was compiling just fine with the previous release of the toolchain. I also appreciate a lot that Embarcadero wants to fulfill the tremendous gap between C++ Builder productivity features and the rest of the world (it worth nothing saying that also Notepad++ is way more productive than this IDE, for this reason comparing Visual Studio Code is quite impossible...another planet).
Now, what Embarcadero is missing here, is the fact that C++ Builder users expect to have the same features available in Delphi just because they comes from the same kind of users or development/developers segments. I mean, we (C++ Builder users) may be less numerous if compared to Delphi users base, but we kinda have the exact same needs in terms of development targets and business.
Do you really think a company will move to Delphi? just because of some "tricky things" you can do to build C++ code inside a Delphi app?As many other users pointed out better than me, it's becoming hard to "promote" C++ Builder when thinking to new projects, if you cannot count on multi-platform capabilities.I also understand that Embarcadero, as well as all of us, has to plan all developments and improvements based on resources available, and this is a fact. I would eventually expect some more "water" from IDERA to get out of this empasse (water: financial support to improve developers teams).
I apologize if I may sound impolite, it was not my intention really.
Hello all, I'm primarily a Windows applications developer and I'm using C++ Builder for all projects (from apps, to dlls, Windows services and REST). I remember the survey we all took one year ago. It was mainly around what OS and project types you are currently working on using C++ Builder and some other questions about what may be interesting for you in some next evolution of the product.
Likewise, in which basement do you live. 80% of our clients insist using Windows 7. No matter which arguments or comments you may have, we can either deliver what clients want, or die. Embarcadero can either deliver what we as clients need or die.
Windows 10 is simply not an option for many/most. Stall and exsessive wear of the HDD, steal data, 50 processes busy communicating with deep MS servers. Rebooting at will. Can you imagine such instable and unreliable Windows OS for a mission critical system ....
My company only use Windows 7. We are "all" looking to migrate to something else, which is either MAC or Linux. Windows i dead, Embarcadero is dead, C++ Builder is dead. Russia and China have already decided not to use MS.
What other fairy tale do you have there for us?
Almost 80% of Desktop computers used run on Windows, hardly dead.
The problem is Embarcadero havnt realized that Windows is dead, we are all moving away from Windows 10 due to Windows is not an OS anymore, its a survaliance platform Thus Embarcadero is focusing on a dead future!
The escape is to MAC or/and Linux. Where today´s IDE for desktop development clearly require support for at least MAC.
As to mobile apps, if you do not support Android, you are dead.
It's a serious delay for my customer, and i can not let them know when will their app show in play store. In-House's used app was not fit for every company. most of customer want's their app SHOW in store.
Problem is decisionmakers at Embarcadero havnt got a clue what they are doing.
Please suport android x64 ASAP. It's a serious delay for my customer, and i can not let them know when will their app show in play store. In-House's used app was not fit for every company. most of customer want's their app SHOW in store
Please add support macOS Catalina for C++ Builder 10.4.2. It's need for develop IOS new projects.
Thankyou everyone for your comments. I and others have read them.We have received the feedback and understand your frustration. We will work to address this as time and resources permit.
David and all the members of the management!Posting this blog 1 day before the Playstore's deadline (!!!) is very-very disappointing with all these very wrong decisions and not even an approximately deadline - so a hope for C++ developers for Android - is a slap. So You let us port all our Android projects to Delphi? It's easy to say! Try first yourself. Did You ever make a big project? You are ruining the developers, Your customers, who trusted in Your roadmap.You are going to ruin Your company with this decision.
Yes, I agreed with you, obviously the decision is decided by non-technical peoples at Embarcadero with NO ENGINEERING HEART.To remind, Embarcadero is selling SOFTWARE DEVELOPER TOOLS and NOT MICROSOFT OFFICE !!!.A software programming experience required 2-3 years to get mature and skillful, 4-5 years above to be professional, I can't believe such sentence can be announced by a software development tools company such as Embarcadero: "If Android 64-bit is important to you, RAD Studio with Delphi is fully compatible. Contact us today to discuss a discount and make the switch."
This is extremely ignorant.