Re: [fpc-other] fpc-other Digest, Vol 150, Issue 8

2023-04-23 Thread Alexander Stohr via fpc-other


Am 2023-04-22 um 19:55 schrieb HSN via fpc-other:

Hi Graemeg thanks for visiting. I wish you had seen the topic which
explains how to get in the invite list without an email. I’m sorry
about that.


This line does not resolve any sort of a certain problem - and even if
it would (but it does not), it would only apply to the named single person.


I’m very disappointed in the crazy talk I’ve found in here.


That does not buy anything. It expresses some sort of personal feeling.
Its neither an apology nor a promise to improve anything at all.


Since when is it ok for some stranger who has absolutely nothing to do
with #fpc channel to come along and demand ownership of our channel
that we use talk about our fpc coding everyday?


The internet is full of strangers - and as long as its reasonable to a
degree to assume its a true human, you should treat it as a human. period.
Dont ask others - ask yourself. If you already need the opinion of
others about humanity and human acting, then you give me the feeling you
are having an obvious deficit in that respect.

Dont do rabulistics, dont do rethorics. Stay for yourself. A good
reputation is something that you have to work for as long as your life
lasts. I feel you are expecting those channel your buddy club for nice
talk, like young people at high school might sometimes have. Later life
is a social skills level more advanced than those age stage i mentioned
just before.


This is insanity. He has no business there besides to cause trouble. I
see no evidence that he even programs in pascal. He has his own
channel is he jealous that he can’t get members or something? I don’t
know.

Feelings again. To me it sounds even more paranoia than i have found in
the previous discussions.
Fact driven decisions would be what a moderation task in an open system
would require to carry out. Giving good proof of such facts would pull
you out of the problem - but no visible efforts to me you even want to
try that. That gives me the impression, that you cant because you dont
have. Why go the way asking others, whilst having all good reason in
your hand? Because you dont have...!?!
(Side node: A closed system has a different rule set. There you can have
a gatekeeper role - there you can check IDs, there you can claim its
'your club'. IRC is open. Period.)

Why would anyone take this person seriously? I don’t want to associate
with anyone who takes him seriously I’ll tell you that.

You dont want to put any cent of efforts in cooperation? It seems to be
a fixed pattern for you to NOT cooperate, to not explore further, to
close the lids instead, to kick people off that you feel(!) bothered in
some way. Yes, the steady stream of new people joining an IRC channel is
a burden, a load, something that will try to "depress" you. Either you
can stand it, or you cant. Again said, its an open system by its current
design and setup - because its purpose demands it. The question is, why
are the others getting evicted when just speaking up - but not even the
idea of you being the single point of problem gets a single sentence of
discussion, of serious thought. What shall i say? You are going to ask
why others would take a person seriously. Because they do something that
you are looking to be not capable of. And now... anyone shall follow
that your in-ability... - well it sounds like you cannot... you can not
cope with people in a way needed to go for an admin job.


I hope the people lurking are more sensible than some of the people
talking in here. If anyone wants to be part of a nice fpc community in
irc where trolls and Spybots are not allowed Please come join us in
#fpc on Libera. If our channel gets hijacked don’t worry I will help
you find where we moved to and make The new channel even better.

Lurkers are the silent people - so you are sort of claiming the silent
people to be on /your side/. Something like "i have the silent majority
on my side" is the BS that i found in Q-Anon circles by the dozend - but
it violates any sane logic. Thats nothing but a pure rhetoric's
non-honest trick and strategy, again. Its just filling some characters
in - with no substance at all.

You have lost the point - you need the active people on your side. But i
cant see any valid efforts from your side to convince, to provide proof,
to put anything on the desk that would clean up the raised subject.
Instead i see you flee to some sort of a future - whilst the struggle of
today is just forgotten. - Nope, the topic was about how to clean up.
You don't contribute anything at all to that.

Instead your lines to read like, if anything goes wrong, and you
probably have strong reasons to assume something like that, then you
will be over there. That's advertisement of a concurrent media. So you
are already claiming your self to be guilty enough to be in such needs.
Okay, if you want to tell the world you are guilty. Why not undertake a
clear hand-over step now? Reminder: a good reputation is something you
have to 

Re: [fpc-other] Why #fpc matters

2023-04-21 Thread Alexander Stohr via fpc-other


Am 2023-04-21 um 08:33 schrieb HSN via fpc-other:


Hello everyone this is Joanna

I discovered fpc and Lazarus around 2014. [...]


I cant see any references to people that spoke up previously
nor can I see any hard reference to issues that those people spoke about.
That together means, I can see no substantial dealing and
neither any advances in the whole subject brewing here.

Sorry - i could have saved a good bunch of my time by NOT reading the
response.
Will that be given any chance for an improvement? Is a noticeable
improvement to expect?


___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other


Re: [fpc-other] Stanford Pascal Compiler successfully ported to Windows, OS/2 and Linux

2016-12-25 Thread Alexander Stohr



Am 2016-12-24 um 15:20 schrieb Bernd Oppolzer:

Am 24.12.2016 um 14:21 schrieb Mark Morgan Lloyd:

On 24/12/16 12:30, Bernd Oppolzer wrote:


Regarding ^:

"my" compiler supports different representations for the pointer 
symbol,

and for other
critical symbols, too:

^  @  ->   for the pointer symbol (I use -> most of the time)
[   (.   (/   for arrays
{   (*  /*   for comments  ("comment" is supported, too, for historic
reasons)


/* was the form used in the first edition of Wirth's description of 
Pascal (might have been before Jensen was there to help out).


I converted all relevant sources (including the compiler itself) to ->,
so this would be ok for me.

This is indeed a very well known C style.

PTRADD, PTRDIFF and so on ...
This is not C style but with a minor macro helper something like this is 
quickly added to a typical C program.
The difference between two pointers is defined as the number of elements 
of the pointer type.
The addition or sum of two pointers is missing a bit of a straight 
forward logic for me.
Advanced coding style recommendations (e.g. MISRA standards) would tell 
you not to use such pointer math
because such constructs have a higher chance to sometimes mislead the 
performing programmer and thus would more likely lead up to codes with 
functional bugs.
The first answer for such operators often is: use the right container 
for the value you are in need and avoid all those operators.
And the second answer is: If you are really in the true rare need (e.g. 
for system programming, ring buffers, atomic operations, code sizes + 
register savings + extreme efficiency) then keep these codes and data 
very isolted, very well documented and finally deeply tested for all 
operating conditions.
Maybe pandora's box, but I need this to do some of the more systems 
related
work. For example: I rewrote the LE storage management in Pascal and 
made it

available to the Stanford Pascal runtime (new functions ALLOC and FREE);
this works perfectly with Hercules and VM; it still has to be tested
with Windows - Linux - OS/2.
Is the your lower end of those module touching on a system API level for 
that?
(e.g. the Linux ABI, OS/2 system peronality, WIN32 api - rather than 
malloc()/free() as a C standard library provides it)
I added /* to the list of allowable symbols for comments, because it's 
what I knew

from PL/1 and C. Comments have to be terminated by the same symbol which
started them, and: they may be nested (as with FPC).
From a C program portability view I would futher "tick" for the support 
of  the "//" comment operator as a single sided one.
On the other side, even for ages there is the option of pascal-2-c 
converters (p2c) that do the other way around, but would have some 
smaller problem if such a token was suddenly added. If sources of the 
tool are available then someone that is in need for support could solve 
it easily.


just my 2 euro cents.

regards and good christmas times.
-Alex.
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other


Re: [fpc-other] Source code of Adobe Photoshop 1 published

2013-02-14 Thread Alexander Stohr

Am 2013-02-14 21:00, schrieb Sven Barth:

On 14.02.2013 20:43, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

Am 14.02.2013 20:20, schrieb Sven Barth:

On 14.02.2013 20:07, Florian Klämpfl wrote:

Am 14.02.2013 20:06, schrieb Sven Barth:

I wonder whether the first version of FPC


0.1 or 1.0 :)?


0.1 of course :)


0.1 was never released to public. To revive it I need to get my hands on
a 5 1/4 drive first.


Then I had reminded wrong what is located in the attic of the FTP server. I 
just looked again and it is a 0.2 version... ^^

But rescuing the 0.1 version would be a good enough reason to get a 5 1/4 
drive again :P

I think i still have a few of this media and drives stored. no idea if they 
still work.
my coming weekend is blocked, but if its still a topic after that
then drop me a note and the address of where to send the unit including data 
cables.

-Alex.
___
fpc-other maillist  -  fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other