Blog

Delphi is no longer a mainstream choice for greenfield development. That much is clear. 

Yet in 2026, thousands of companies across finance, manufacturing, healthcare, logistics, and public services still rely on Delphi applications to run core operations. These systems process transactions, control workflows, manage data, and quietly deliver business value every day. Embarcadero, the vendor behind Delphi, continues to release updates and publicly reports ongoing enterprise adoption of RAD Studio and Delphi, reinforcing its continued presence in production environments.

For many CTOs and CIOs, the question is no longer “Is Delphi outdated?” – it is. The real question is far more pragmatic:

Should we continue supporting our Delphi application, stabilize it, or start migrating it?

This decision is rarely straightforward. Delphi systems often work reliably, have predictable behavior, and encode years of domain knowledge. At the same time, they carry growing organizational and technical risks that compound over time if left unaddressed.

This time, we prepared an expert overview to help technology leaders step back and evaluate their options with a business-first perspective.

Why companies continue supporting Delphi applications

Delphi development is no longer associated with new development or industry trends. It rarely features in technology headlines, yet it remains firmly embedded in many enterprise environments, quietly supporting business-critical processes.

Below are three practical reasons why many organizations continue to support Delphi applications.

1. Stability and predictability

Many Delphi applications have been running in production for 10, 15, or even 20 years. They are:

• Functionally stable
• Well understood by the business
• Proven under real operational load

This long-lived stability is frequently cited by Delphi users themselves as a key reason for continued use in enterprise environments. Unlike newer systems that may evolve rapidly, these applications tend to change slowly. Their behavior is predictable, and failures – if they occur – are usually well characterized.

From a risk management perspective, this stability is valuable. Replacing a working system introduces uncertainty that can outweigh the perceived benefits of modernization.

2. Cost-effective long-term support

Contrary to popular belief, supporting an existing Delphi system is often cheaper in the short to medium term than rebuilding it. Why?

• Infrastructure costs are usually low and amortized
• Licenses are already paid for
• The application scope is fixed
• Business users are trained and productive

Industry modernization assessments consistently note that full rewrites introduce significant indirect costs related to revalidation, retraining, and operational disruption, even when the target platform is technically superior.

When change requests are minimal, ongoing maintenance can be financially efficient – especially compared to the cost of multi-year migration programs.

3. Low risk of functional regressions

Legacy systems tend to reflect business rules accumulated over years of real-world exceptions. Migrating them often exposes hidden complexity that is poorly documented but deeply embedded in the code and data.

Continuing support avoids:

• Re-implementing misunderstood logic
• Breaking edge cases relied upon by daily operations
• Disrupting dependent processes or integrations

Modernization case studies repeatedly highlight regression risk as one of the most underestimated challenges of legacy replacement initiatives. In practice, for regulated or mission-critical environments, reducing regression risk is often more important than adopting a modern technology stack quickly.

The main business risks of continuing Delphi support

The case for continuing Delphi support is often logical and defensible. Still, it has a counterweight: risks that accumulate quietly over time. While support can be rational, it is not risk-free, and some business risks eventually become hard to ignore.

1. Shortage of Delphi specialists

The talent pool for Delphi is shrinking. Many experienced developers are approaching retirement, and few junior engineers choose Delphi as a primary skill. Current job board listings show Delphi roles still exist, but are relatively scarce and regionally concentrated compared to mainstream stacks.

This creates several issues:

• Hiring takes longer and costs more
• Knowledge becomes concentrated in a small number of individuals
• Unexpected attrition creates operational risk

This shortage does not make support impossible – but it does make it fragile if not managed deliberately.

2. Rising support costs over time

Even if the application itself is stable, the cost of keeping it stable tends to rise due to the following reasons:

• Specialized developers command higher rates
• Older build tools and environments require maintenance
• Compatibility issues appear with newer OS versions, databases, or security tools

Modernization analyses consistently point out that legacy systems accumulate operational friction even when functionality remains unchanged. What starts as “cheap to maintain” can quietly become expensive if these costs are not tracked and controlled.

3. Dependence on outdated libraries and components

In practice, this risk rarely appears as a single breaking issue. Many long-lived Delphi applications rely on third-party visual components, reporting tools, or database drivers that are no longer actively maintained and are tied to specific compiler, OS, or database versions.

Custom frameworks written years ago can further limit flexibility. While they may still function, they often lack updates for security and compatibility, making even small changes risky. Deprecated APIs or drivers can also block routine upgrades, turning infrastructure updates or integrations into complex, high-effort tasks rather than standard maintenance work.

Practitioner research on legacy modernization notes that external dependency obsolescence is a major blocker for upgrades and compliance initiatives. This increases the effort required to apply updates, fix bugs, or integrate with newer systems. In some cases, it blocks upgrades entirely.

4. Security and compliance challenges

Security expectations in 2026 are very different from those of 2006 or 2010, and legacy applications often bear the consequences. Three concrete, commonly observed issues explain why:

1. Authentication and protocol changes break older clients. 

Major platform providers are deprecating insecure authentication and transport protocols (for example, Microsoft’s progressive removal of Basic Authentication and older TLS versions). If an application or its integrations depend on those legacy protocols, processes that once worked will suddenly fail or require custom, brittle workarounds.

2. Modern security controls and identity models are non-trivial to retrofit. 

Techniques such as OAuth2/OpenID Connect, short-lived tokens, centralized identity providers, and strong MFA are now baseline expectations for many integrations and regulatory regimes. Retrofitting these into an application that was never designed for token-based flows or centralized identity often requires architectural changes, which increases complexity and the chance of mistakes. OWASP’s guidance and the broader literature on secure development emphasize that legacy applications require bespoke adaptation to meet these modern controls.

3. Auditability, logging, and compliance requirements are evolving. 

Regulations and industry standards (GDPR, PCI DSS, HIPAA, SOX, etc.) increasingly require detailed, tamper-evident logs, proof of access controls, and demonstrable data-handling lifecycles. Legacy systems frequently lack centralized, structured logging, consistent audit trails, or the ability to produce the required artifacts without considerable manual effort. Security practitioners recommend treating legacy systems as higher-risk assets and applying compensating controls or modernization plans aligned with frameworks such as the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, ISO/IEC 27001, and more.

Together, these factors mean that even when business logic is correct, the surrounding ecosystem – identity flows, transport security, logging, and compliance artifacts — may no longer meet baseline expectations without targeted remediation.

Overall, even if the business logic is sound, the surrounding ecosystem may no longer meet today’s security or compliance expectations without targeted remediation.

When extending Delphi support is normal – and profitable

Continuing support is not a failure of strategy. In many cases, it is the correct decision. Extending support is usually reasonable when the following conditions apply.

1. Few or no functional changes

If the application’s feature set is largely frozen and new requirements are rare or minor, the risk of staying put is low.

2. Internal, stable applications

Delphi systems that are:

• used internally,
• not customer-facing,
• and shielded from frequent UI/UX expectations,

are often good candidates for long-term support. Vendor guidance explicitly recognizes this pattern as a valid long-term strategy for mature Delphi systems.

3. Existing documentation and quality control

If the system has:

• meaningful documentation,
• source control discipline,
• repeatable build processes,
• some level of testing –

then continued support is significantly safer. The system may be old, but it is not opaque.

When continued support becomes a trap

Problems arise when business reality changes, but the technical strategy does not. Let’s peek at the dark side of the Moon.

1. New business requirements, integrations, or scaling

Delphi systems often struggle when asked to:

• Integrate with modern cloud platforms
• Expose APIs to external partners
• Scale horizontally or globally
• Support mobile-first workflows

Modernization studies consistently show that integration and scalability pressures are common triggers for legacy replacement initiatives.

At this point, every new requirement feels harder and slower than it should be.

2. Outdated UI/UX expectations

What was acceptable a decade ago may now be a liability:

• Desktop-only interfaces
• Inconsistent user experience
• Poor accessibility

If the application is customer-facing or impacts employee productivity, UI/UX limitations can translate directly into business friction.

3. Knowledge concentrated in a single developer

Some historians believe the Library of Babylon had a single librarian who knew where everything was. When that knowledge disappears, the system doesn’t collapse immediately — but understanding it becomes guesswork. The same pattern appears in legacy software teams more often than anyone likes to admit.

This is one of the most dangerous patterns in long-lived Delphi systems:

• One person understands the system

Critical architectural decisions, edge cases, and operational workarounds live in one person’s head, making the organization highly vulnerable to absence, attrition, or role changes.

• Documentation is minimal or outdated

What documentation exists no longer reflects reality, forcing engineers to reverse-engineer behavior from code rather than rely on shared understanding.

• Informal processes replace explicit design

Knowledge is transferred through conversations, habits, and “tribal rules,” which works until a new team member needs to make a non-trivial change.

• Changes require unwritten approval paths

Teams hesitate to modify certain areas of the system because it’s unclear who owns them or how changes might ripple through the application.

When knowledge is this concentrated, continued support depends less on technology and more on individual availability – a risk that grows quietly until it becomes unavoidable.

When new requirements, UI expectations, or knowledge gaps begin to strain a Delphi system, the most common mistake is reacting too quickly – or not reacting at all. This is typically the point where a structured assessment creates more value than another round of ad-hoc fixes.

What you can do without migrating: a stabilization plan from TYMIQ experts

Migration is not the only option. In many cases, stabilization delivers significant risk reduction without rewriting the system.

Based on real-world engagements, a practical stabilization plan typically includes the following steps.

Step 1: Audit and documentation

• Identify system boundaries and dependencies
• Document critical business logic and data flows
• Map third-party components and licenses

The goal is not perfect documentation, but enough clarity to reduce uncertainty and data mismatches.

Step 2: Tests and CI

Even limited automation can make a major difference:

• Smoke tests for critical workflows
• Regression tests for high-risk areas
• Automated builds to ensure reproducibility

Vendor guidance for Delphi modernization explicitly emphasizes incremental testing and CI adoption as risk-reduction measures.

Step 3: Technical debt reduction

Targeted refactoring can:

• Remove dead code
• Replace unsupported libraries
• Isolate legacy components behind clearer interfaces

Reducing technical debt is less about cleanup and more about long-term control. If you want a deeper look at how organizations assess, prioritize, and systematically reduce technical debt in legacy ETL environments, we cover this in a detailed guide.

Sneak peek: Three possible future scenarios for your Delphi system

At a strategic level, most Delphi-dependent organizations end up choosing one of three paths.

1. Support as is

This path means continuing current support practices with minimal change, focusing on keeping the system running as it is today. A common example is an internal accounting, reporting, or operations system that has been stable for years, receives only minor fixes, and supports well-understood business processes. In such cases, the application is not a growth driver, but it remains operationally important and predictable.

Common pitfalls include:

• Growing dependency on a shrinking talent pool
  Over time, fewer engineers are available who can maintain the system confidently. This increases reliance on specific individuals or external contractors, making staffing changes slower, more expensive, and riskier.
• Increasing difficulty responding to audits or incidents
  As security, compliance, and operational requirements evolve, legacy systems often require more manual effort to produce audit evidence, investigate incidents, or implement corrective actions within acceptable timeframes.
• No clear exit strategy
  Without documented knowledge, technical baselines, or a future roadmap, the organization has limited options if circumstances change suddenly – such as a critical dependency reaching end of life or a key maintainer leaving.

This approach can work, particularly for stable, low-change systems, but it is typically viable only for a limited period and tends to carry gradually increasing operational risk.

2. Stabilize and prepare for migration

This is often the most balanced option.

If you’re considering what comes after stabilization, you may find it useful to explore how other teams approach migration in practice. In a separate article, we break down when and how Delphi VCL applications are typically migrated to ASP.NET, including common triggers, approaches, and trade-offs.

3. Start migration in stages

When a system is exposed to ongoing operational constraints, staged migration often becomes unavoidable. These constraints usually stem from external business or regulatory requirements rather than from the technology's age alone.

In practice, pressure most often comes from the need to connect legacy systems to a changing technology ecosystem. As organizations adopt cloud platforms, SaaS products, partner APIs, and modern data pipelines, older Delphi applications can become integration bottlenecks. Architecture guidance consistently points to integration friction as one of the most common triggers for legacy modernization, especially when systems were not designed to expose APIs or operate reliably in distributed environments.

Another source of pressure comes from security, compliance, and platform lifecycle changes that happen independently of the application itself. Operating systems, databases, authentication standards, and security frameworks continue to evolve, and legacy applications often require structural changes to keep pace. 

Research on secure software lifecycles shows that older architectures and libraries can make it increasingly difficult to meet modern security, audit, and compliance requirements without incremental modernization.

When these pressures accumulate, continuing “support as is” becomes increasingly risky, and staged migration becomes the least disruptive option. A phased approach typically includes:

1. Isolating specific modules or services

The first step is identifying bounded areas of functionality that can be separated from the core system with minimal impact. This often involves:

• Extracting reporting, batch processing, or integration-heavy components
• Introducing service boundaries around stable business capabilities
• Wrapping legacy functionality with APIs to decouple consumers

This technique aligns with the widely adopted Strangler Fig pattern, which allows new components to coexist with the legacy system while gradually reducing its footprint.

2. Replacing the UI while keeping the backend

In many Delphi systems, the user interface is the most visibly outdated and least aligned with current UX expectations. A common intermediate step is:

• Building a modern web or cross-platform UI
• Keeping core business logic and data access in the existing backend
• Introducing an API or service layer between UI and backend

This approach delivers immediate user-facing improvements while avoiding the high regression risk of reimplementing complex business logic too early. Modernization case studies frequently cite UI-first replacement as a way to demonstrate early value and reduce stakeholder resistance.

For many teams, UI replacement is the first step toward a broader transition. If you want a clearer picture of how Delphi systems are migrated to .NET in practice – including planning, risks, and execution – we cover it in detail in a dedicated article.

3. Gradually replatforming data and logic

Once boundaries are established, core components can be migrated incrementally:

• Moving specific data domains to modern databases
• Rewriting selected business services in the target platform
• Running old and new components in parallel with controlled cutover

Academic and industry research on legacy modernization emphasizes that incremental replatforming significantly reduces operational and business risk compared to full rewrites, especially for long-lived systems with complex data models.

This staged approach allows organizations to respond to unavoidable pressure without betting the business on a single, irreversible migration event.

In a nutshell

Delphi’s age alone does not make it a problem. Many Delphi applications continue to deliver real, measurable business value in 2026, a reality acknowledged by both vendors and modernization practitioners.

The real risk lies in ignoring context:

• Business evolution
• Talent availability
• Security expectations
• Organizational resilience

For some organizations, continued support is a sensible, profitable choice. For others, stabilization is a necessary step toward future change. And for some, staged migration is already overdue.

The right answer is not universal. It depends on what the system does, how it is used, and what the business needs next.