Current text:
There is nothing practical known yet about how portable an average .NET
code will be. Little experiments with hello world level code mean
nothing, that kind of code works with plain C too.
Proposed text:
There is nothing practical known yet about how portable an average .NET
code will be. Little experiments with hello world level code mean
nothing. At this moment object pascal code that can be compiled with fpc
is more portable than .NET code that can be compiled with Delphi.
I think the proposed one is better. Agree with you. :)
I'd also like to question this statement on the same page:
> Moreover that also means that existing apps would have to be
> rewritten for .NET, since it would take more than a simple
> recompile with a FPC/.NET compiler.
Why Delphi has no problem supporting .Net without sacrificing backward
compatibility (too much)? If I'm not mistaken (CMIIW), during Borcon 2005,
Borland demoed a Delphi 1 application (the famous FishFact demo) that can be
run on .Net by simply recompile it on BDS 2005. A similar demo is also
presented when Borland launched Kylix, simply adding a few $ifdef for q-prefix
and then recompile, the Delphi demo application can be running on Linux.
I know writing FPC port for .Net is far from easy. But the difficulty should
be on compiler code side only. On the user/app code, it shouldn't cause
significant changes. Since Delphi and FPC has same language root, object
pascal, I wonder why existing FPC apps can't be simply recompile on FPC/.Net?
Of course, I never meant it'd work for EVERY kind of apps and codes, but it
should work for most common apps.
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
