I don't have the top post (
http://lists.freepascal.org/lists/FPC-other/2010-October/000468.html )
in this thread to comment on in a more conversation fashion, as a result
I reverting to bulleted listing of my views on the subject.
1) In the fpc-devel I have read quite a few arguments that FPC is
production quality and no significant changes can be afforded to that code.
While I sympathize with what that implies, it also means that,
structurally, FPC is more or less frozen --except for very small
incremental alterations, there isn't much that can be done with/to it.
That brings me to this remark by DoDi: "Unfortunately some restrictions
apply to the possible changes to the original code, when we want to stay
in sync with the SVN trunk."
I am not at all sure that this is the way to go about it. It is very
likely that the needed changes will soon amount to a shape that will
make it impossible to stay in sync with the FPC trunk.
So, I think it would be more sensible/rational to remove this
artificial/unsustainable restriction/desire and decide to call this a
proper fork for a new version which may or may not be source-mergeable
with the FPC trunk.
2) As it is, FPC codebase represents a very high barrier of entry for
the uninitiated, drastically reducing any chances of outsiders coming in
and contributing.
To help with that, I'd like to see the new FPC to be functionally as
modularized as possible with sufficiently clear boundaries between each
so that people can work on parts without having to know and worry about
the whole thing all the time.
I can hear the 'speed arguments' (that, doing this would lower the speed
of compilation etc.) but I am yet to be convinced; plus, if I had to
choose between sacrificing a few percent on raw performance and the ease
of maintainability, I'll always go for the ease of maintainability.
3) Alternative parsers. I have read all the objections about this. Yes,
it may not solve every single problem. Yes, it will not mean FPC will
take over GCC. Yes, not everyone need this functionality. Etc. Etc.
But, all these seem to ignore one simple fact: Object Pascal (OP) is not
a widely used language. A lot of code that is out there is in some other
language. Which means, OP developers have either to reinvent most wheels
by rewriting the code they need (even though it is readily available in
some other language) or try to convert that code into OP.
All this is not only a major waste of time, sometimes it requires
extensive knowledge of that language.
So, IMO, anything that helps using that large amount of code base can
only be GOOD THING even if it isn't perfect all the time.
--
Cheers,
Adem
_______________________________________________
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
