> > Why, according to you, is Oxygen Object Pascal at all? Aside from their > > advertizements? Just if you compare the base subset ? > > > Is there some independent definition of the term "Object Pascal" ? I > don't suppose so.
Well, there is the actual Object Pascal standard draft. Delphi deviates quite some from that though. > So they are right to claim that they are compatible to > Object pascal :) . "compatible" is nonsense, since they are not compatible to any of the roughly three preexisting ones. Descendant could be said, but I don't even see much evidence for that. There is a superficial resemblance in the parser model and that is about it. They are about as Pascal as Perl is C because they both have curly braces and some similar operator names. > Of course Oxygen is a lot less compatible to Delphi than FP is. They are > greatly CIL centric "less compatible"?!?!? Can Oxygen actually compile and execute any preexisting code in any Pascal dialect ? > OTOH they claim that "Delphi for .NET" is not a decent way to > write CIL code at all. Probably. But that doesn't make them "Object Pascal". I do recognize that Rem Objects needs some language to package and promote their frameworks (the thing they are IMHO good in), but the featurelist is a bunch of C# me too's. Of course they will greatly stress the improved readability and the like, but I would too if I had to sell it :-) _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel