In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > Graeme started working on it when CHM was already mostly > > operational. > > "mostly operational" doesn't entrust a lot of confidence.
Compared to somebody saying he is resurrecting some old OS/2 technology, it is a miracle of confidence. > > ?Most of his original arguments were based on disk sizes and > > little implementation gotchas, not on functionality. I still don't see the > > point of inf. > > For the record, disk size (even though the size difference is huge) > was largely a bonus feature. No, at the time, you kept raving about it. Only when you started implementing more features, your tune changed. > The speed of INF was a major contributor > (considering CHM is just an archive of very verbose HTML files). And INF is just an archive or whatever markup it uses. > Also the fact that any non-Microsoft CHM viewer absolutely sucks, and that > all but one [lhelp] of those are written in C/C++ [thus I can't > contribute] was another point to consider. LHelp's output also looks > terrible and is much slower than most CHM viewers. Yes, but that was because other people decided to roll their own. And I tried docview on windows and IMHO it was unusable. > gave me full control: the programming language I know and love, > something I can maintain, advanced searching [which is super fast], All that was available for CHM too, PLUS the generation facilities. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
