On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:21:37 Michael Van Canneyt wrote: > > Martin (MSEgui) and myself having first hand experience in this will > > definitely tell you that there are much less bugs (simply because the > > code is simpler), easier to fix bugs too. And to fix a bug it's in one > > location for all supported platforms (99% of the time). > > The downside to this is: there is also a lot less functionality. > A simpler product is by definition easier to maintain. > > As you will introduce more components, you'll also introduce more > bugs, this is inevitable. > I don't think MSEide+MSEgui has "a lot less functionality" than Lazarus. In many areas it has even more. Examples: Database components, graphics (transparency, 100% flicker free), skinning (tframe, tface, tskincontroller), sophisticated key, shortcut and action handling, twidgetgrid and many editwidgets, a unicode capable postscript printer, sophisticated base widget component without the differentiation TGraphicControl/TWinControl and 100% working transparency, docking...
MSEide+MSEgui is on version 2.2 and reached production stability in 2006. Many of the MSEgui functions were impossible to achieve or need an enormous work with native widgetsets and MSEide+MSEgui surely had not production quality now. Lazarus too had not 100% production quality now if I invested my time into Lazarus instead to develop MSEide+MSEgui. Please don't underestimate the difficulty to reach 100% quality from 90% level if one can not modify the underlaying widget libraries. Although 90% is sufficient for most of the projects and the commercial concurrence is not better maybe. :-) Martin -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
