Whats new in FM2/XE3

Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to attend the XE3 World Tour because of family committments.  As a result, I have registered to attend David I’s Lunch and Learn webinar in order to validate my decision that XE3 holds insufficient improvements to recommend an upgrade purchase.  I wonder what David I is serving up for lunch….

I also thought I would visit the What’s New in FM2 web page to investigate items I might want to ask questions about.  The first one that comes to mind is, “Why is Interbase XE3 included in whats new in FM2?”  Surely EMBT knows about programming rules such as the separation of concerns….so why is the Data Access Layer part of whats new in the Presentation or User Interface Layer?

Also, why is it FM2? I would interpret that as not version 2 of FireMonkey which incidentally uses the FMX namespace (great idea using consistent nomenclature), but FM squared! I am really looking forward to seeing the exponential improvements in FireMonkey ;)  I must have missed them when I read through the XE3 feature matrix….

5 Responses to “Whats new in FM2/XE3”

  1. Warren P Says:

    I think the superscripted 2 refers to the way that basically they started a whole new framework design when the started out down the FMX road, and they regret some decisions that they made early on without understanding their consequences. So, like good architects should do, they have internally admitted that, and rebooted their design. That is why it was necessary to retire the existing iOS support in FMX 1.0 until it can be rebuilt with the new design, thus the reasons why it is not shipped in XE3, leading to many of the Nabobs of Negativity in the community criticizing Embarcadero for something I think we should be praising them for; For building it right instead of just shipping it now, when something clearly needs more time, take that time. And they’re doing that.

    But customers who just want to complain, will complain. Is XE3 worth upgrading to? I think the visual data bindings feature is worth upgrading from XE2 for me. Only you can decide if it’s worth it to you. You can download a trial, and try it out (on a VM, if you like), right? Surely it’s worth that much of your time.

    Warren

  2. Michael Thuma Says:

    FM2 works so far but I am in the beginning, I think to have a Metropolis App on the Mac can be inspiring.

    As Warren mentioned, the data bindings are a must on one hand but available on the other. I hope FM2 will be ‘the’ FMX and will continue to improve. FM2 is in a usable state. At the moment I am missing nothing but will have to check sensors and all this stuff.

    Little off topic. Already experimenting with Office 2013 and the Metro skins without Metropolis style application. This way does provide good results too out of the box already. My requirements are little add-on tools that complete the Office on one hand and look also good on Win7 on the other, because these style give your app a completely different look. Same can be done with FM2.

  3. Lachlan Gemmell Says:

    This is the best reference I’ve found to see what’s new in XE3

    http://delphi-insider.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/delphi-xe3-new-and-enhanced-features.html

  4. Larry Hengen Says:

    @Warren,

    I would definitely recommend using a VM for any EMBT trials. The last time I installed a trial (XE I believe) I had difficulty getting the licensed version istalled, and lost some significant time consulting tech support who couldn’t resolve the issue using their knowledge base, but put me on the right track to find a resolution myself.

    While I would applaud EMBT for trying to “do it right with FMX” if that is indeed the case, their replacement compiler for FPC on the Mac and iOS is long over due, and as a result FM2 cannot be used by the customers who bought XE2 for iOS, and now those customers are looking at having to pay again to get Mobile studio when it ships….assuming of course EMBT manages to hit their timeline targets this time…

    As far as live bindings go, I have been using visual bindings of my own invention with hcOPF for almost 2 years now. My bindings are written in Delphi, and can be debugged using Delphi. They do not rely on a black box expression engine. Neither live bindings or the visual enhancements hold any interest for me.

    I wish EMBT would concentrate on things that only EMBT can do….like providing Delphi compilers, and a robust IDE framework that can be enhanced by third party developers. UI frameworks could arguably be left to others. WxWidgets, fpGUI, LCL, and GLScene are all examples of other efforts in that area. Without full language compiler compatibility it makes single source - multiple platforms impossible. FMX currently doesn’t even provide a very close analog to VCL, although it’s closer now with Action support. These are the things I think EMBT should be looking at. FMX adoption will be much greater if porting doesn’t require a complete re-write, so developers can leverage their existing knowledge and code.

    BTW, complaining should not be confused with people expressing their opinion as to how they think things could be done. That’s how companies and their products keep getting better.

  5. Steffen Binas Says:

    Regarding the versioning scheme: FM², don’t expect too much from “exponential improvements” … you know what’s the result of 1² is? ;-)
    I appreciate every improvement in FireMonkey as we rely on it for some of our products…and there are indeed some little improvement in there, e.g. TMemo now accepting double click to select a word and they also fixed some buggy behaviour. I hope to find more improvements of that kind, as we already built a working product with FM1 and suffered of these usability issues.

Leave a Reply