It seems to me like the three answers so far have completely missed the point of your question. That, or I have. You're asking why Win32 Delphi doesn't have something like the magical Supports function that Hallvard's article talks about, aren't you? Namely, a function that, given the name of a DLL and the type information of an interface, returns an object that implements that interface using the standalone functions exported from the DLL.
Hydra seems to be all about calling .Net code from a Win32 program, not about importing functions from a DLL. TJvPluginManager requires that the plug-in DLLs export a special self-registration function that the manager will call when it loads the DLL, and the function must return an instance of the TJvPlugin class, so the plug-in DLL must be written in Delphi or C++ Builder. The Supports function, on the other hand, works with any DLL written in any language. You could use it on kernel32, if you wanted.
I don't know why Win32 Delphi doesn't have such a thing. Maybe CodeGear didn't see much demand for it since Delphi and Turbo Pascal had already gone for so long without it.
It's certainly possible to write a function that works like that, and I don't expect it would be any harder to write than the .Net version must have been, unless Microsoft's .Net libraries already provide most of the pieces and Delphi just wraps them up into a convenient-to-call function that looks like the several other overloaded versions of Supports that Delphi has had for years.
There would be a few steps to implementing that function in Win32. (I'm providing only a sketch of what's necessary because I don't have a running copy of Delphi handy right now. Ask nicely, and maybe I'll find more details.) First, you'd need to make sure that type information for an interface held, at a minimum, the undecorated names of its methods. Then, Supports would need to generate a function stub for each method in the interface (besides _AddRef, _Release, and QueryInterface). The stub would go something like this, assuming the calling convention is stdcall:
asm
// Pop the return address,
// discard the "this" pointer,
// and restore the return address
pop eax
pop ecx
push eax
jmp AddressOfFunction
end;
As Supports generated each stub, it would fill in the actual function address, gotten from calling GetProcAddress with the name of the corresponding interface method. The stdcall calling convention is easy to wrap like that; cdecl is a little cumbersome; register is a pain in the neck.
Once it has all the stubs generated, it would need to generate an "object" that looks like it implements the given interface. It doesn't have to be an actual class. At compile time, Supports doesn't know the layout of the interface it's going to be asked to implement, so having a class wouldn't accomplish much.
The final step is to provide implementations of the _AddRef, _Release, and QueryInterface. _AddRef would be unremarkable; _Release is where you'd call FreeLibrary when the reference count reached zero; QueryInterface wouldn't do much at all, except claim that it supports IUnknown and the interface given to Supports.
Delphi used to come with a sample program that demonstrated implementing an interface without any classes at all. It was all done with records and function pointers (which is all an interface ultimately is, after all). Delphi also came with the corresponding code to do it with classes, in part to show how much easier Delphi can make things. I can't find the name of the demo program now, but I'm sure it's still around somewhere.
Best Answer
Here's my list of software protection solutions. I'm looking at switching from ASProtect to another protection so I'm also in the process of analyzing most of these programs:
One thing to note is that the more protection options you enable on the software protector, the bigger the possibility of the protected file being flagged by an anti-virus as a false-positive. For example, on Themida, checking the option to encrypt the file, will most likely create a few false-positives by a few anti-virus programs. I'll update this answer once I get more replies from a hackers forum where I asked some questions about these tools.
And finally, don't use the build-in serial number/license management of these tools. Although they might be more secure than using your own, you will be tied up to that specific tool. If you decide to change software protection in the future, you will also have to manage all the customer keys transfer to a new system.