L wrote:
If you read something you don't like on PasWiki, I expect you all
to analyze me and write about me. Don't remain quiet! Make your own websites,
bring it up on the
mailing lists. I would like more people to shred me to pieces with their own
websites so we can have
some more FPC content
> > What is wrong with the regular expression support in Free Pascal ?
> > Is it not powerful enough for the shootout benchmark ?
> Yes, it cannot handle the regular expression the benchmark uses.
> DaniКl
And the engine (with the word "free") I referenced works.
I bet there are other free pascal
Op Mon, 14 May 2007, schreef Michael Van Canneyt:
> What is wrong with the regular expression support in Free Pascal ?
> Is it not powerful enough for the shootout benchmark ?
Yes, it cannot handle the regular expression the benchmark uses.
Daniël___
On Mon, 14 May 2007, Пётр Косаревский wrote:
> http://shootout.alioth.debian.org
>
> Regex program is still missing. It was discussed some time ago.
>
> Did any licensing competent FreePascal developer try to contact
> http://www.regexpstudio.com/TRegExpr/TRegExpr.html about self-proclaimed
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org
Regex program is still missing. It was discussed some time ago.
Did any licensing competent FreePascal developer try to contact
http://www.regexpstudio.com/TRegExpr/TRegExpr.html about self-proclaimed
"TRegExpr - Freeware Delphi Regular Expressions Library... T
On 5/13/07, Micha Nelissen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I guess that's Delphi 7 Enterprise with loading all possible components
at startup ? So not entirely fair.
( Hear me: defending Delphi?? ;-) )
hehe... Your guess was correct. My Lazarus also has quite a few extra
component suites installe
Op Sun, 13 May 2007, schreef Peter Popov:
> > Yes. The problem in this case is clear. Automated is deprecated andrarely
> > used functionality. (like e.g. dynamic methods).
>
> Let me know if I can help in any way with automation RTTI compatibility? If
> this feature is implemented (just the RT
developpers. On the other hand, say any stable fpc release should be
able
to compile (on win32), without trouble the entire VCL of say, delphi
2-5.
I don't see why that is a focus point. It's a nice testsuite, but until
it
is free, there is no real benefit in it. Specially since the VCL-
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> We still need to maintain some Delphi based code and use Delphi 7 for
> that. Now on the exact same PC, Delphi 7 takes 25 seconds to start
> up. Lazarus takes a mere 2 seconds. Lazarus is still far from being
> slow an non-responsive!!!
I guess that's Delphi 7 Enterpr
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> On 5/13/07, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Which was the exactly what I meant to express.. Needs more continuous
> > > struggle from people with a direct interest to not let the improvement
> > > rate
> > > decrease.
> >
> > A
On 5/13/07, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which was the exactly what I meant to express.. Needs more continuous
> struggle from people with a direct interest to not let the improvement rate
> decrease.
Agreed 100% !
Not all at once, please. There is plenty of room for enthous
On Sun, 13 May 2007, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > > > I also complained and complained about websnap and asp and php, and of
> > > > course I also wrote some code
> > > > that solved my problem there which is all FPC based, the poor old wiki,
> > > > forum, and other utilities
> > > > on my s
> > > I also complained and complained about websnap and asp and php, and of
> > > course I also wrote some code
> > > that solved my problem there which is all FPC based, the poor old wiki,
> > > forum, and other utilities
> > > on my site that need updating. Others choose the easy solution and
On 5/13/07, L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
folks agree with me.. many people on the pascal game devel BBS are saying
Lazarus is becoming huge
and slow.
This one is funny! :-)
I have used Delphi since D4 up till D7 in commercial development and
switched to FPC and Lazarus about 2 years ago. I
> > I also complained and complained about websnap and asp and php, and of
> > course I also wrote some code
> > that solved my problem there which is all FPC based, the poor old wiki,
> > forum, and other utilities
> > on my site that need updating. Others choose the easy solution and use ASP
> > As far as I know, Lars is a FPC fan, and he merely wishes to express concern
> > about some of the issues he has with FPC
>
> Yes I'm a fan.
>
> It's not just the issues that I alone have with FPC since I'm not even an
> embedded programmer myself.
IMHO this whole discussion has nothing to d
Marco van de Voort wrote:
Dani?l Mantione wrote:
But I'll leave this up to the Lazarus team. They have talented developers,
and I'm sure they are brainstorming about ideas to reduce the exe size.
However, Lazarus developers do the engineering balancing too and weigh exe
size against anyth
> Dani?l Mantione wrote:
> > But I'll leave this up to the Lazarus team. They have talented developers,
> > and I'm sure they are brainstorming about ideas to reduce the exe size.
> > However, Lazarus developers do the engineering balancing too and weigh exe
> > size against anything else.
> >
On 5/12/07, Graeme Geldenhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I am allowed mine and
totally disagree with his statement about GUI's not being used on any
other platform than Windows. And that FPC and Lazarus cannot be used
for decent GUI applications.
I disa
Daniël Mantione wrote:
Perhaps, a possible way out is to make the LCL more plug-inable. For
example, the LCL needs to support many graphics formats, and the code
ending up in the program has to be designed to support them all; you don't
know what ends up in the resource files. As a solution you
Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef L:
> > As far as I know, Lars is a FPC fan, and he merely wishes to express concern
> > about some of the issues he has with FPC
>
> Yes I'm a fan.
>
> It's not just the issues that I alone have with FPC since I'm not even an
> embedded programmer
> myself. I'm pu
> As far as I know, Lars is a FPC fan, and he merely wishes to express concern
> about some of the issues he has with FPC
Yes I'm a fan.
It's not just the issues that I alone have with FPC since I'm not even an
embedded programmer
myself. I'm putting myself in their shoes. It isn't just me who i
Peter Popov wrote:
> > Yes. Failure of Delphi users to have any consensus about what is compiler
> > behaviour, and what is language behaviour. Every bit of behaviour that
> > Delphi exposes is considered gospel.
>
> That is true and is compounded by the fact that there is no ISO standard.
It
On Sat, 12 May 2007 15:40:49 -0500, ik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Ok, you dragged me into responding this subject as well :)
While it might sound as such, this is not Windows vs Linux fight, only
a point of view for an ex Delphi developer, and a 5 years of Linux
users (as only OS).
Corre
A.s. I already deleted it, but quite some older apps break on Vista now.
Including e.g. Delphi 7. MS is also deviating from the compat path.
Unfortunately.
>i. Too many bugs in any official release. This is unavoidable,
> considering the many platforms and targets supported. But it is a fac
Hi,
Ok, you dragged me into responding this subject as well :)
While it might sound as such, this is not Windows vs Linux fight, only
a point of view for an ex Delphi developer, and a 5 years of Linux
users (as only OS).
On 5/12/07, Peter Popov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 12 May 2007 05:
On Sat, 12 May 2007 05:04:33 -0500, Michael Van Canneyt
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As far as I know, Lars is a FPC fan, and he merely wishes to express
concern about
some of the issues he has with FPC (I'll leave the matter of whether his
concerns
are justified up to others to comment o
> I agree with Graeme. There are professional developers out here who want
> a decent cross platform product and who don't like the
> C/++/#/Java/.net/etcetcetc because of various reasons. My own reasons
> are that I find C(like) languages to be semantically weak and
> encouraging of bad progra
> > Non trivial Delphi GUI apps also quickly rise to 1.5MB
> lazarus may produce apps that are size comparable with those from the
> recent versions of delphi but those are also megabloat compared to those
> produced by the older versions of delphi.
megabloat? A million times larger?
___
> > it does not contain any proposals.
>
> "Everyone is able or limited to see only what he can imagine."
Helmut, till now, in this discussion I like your answer the best.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal
Nicely put. ;) I've found it has good points on some arguments. It's good to
be considered. :)
Yes, but the language used puts off some people.
Yup. Sometimes Lars sounds to aggresive. :-D
As far as I know, Lars is a FPC fan, and he merely wishes to express concern
about
some of the issues
I agree with Graeme. There are professional developers out here who want
a decent cross platform product and who don't like the
C/++/#/Java/.net/etcetcetc because of various reasons. My own reasons
are that I find C(like) languages to be semantically weak and
encouraging of bad programmer behav
> Non trivial Delphi GUI apps also quickly rise to 1.5MB
lazarus may produce apps that are size comparable with those from the recent
versions of delphi but those are also megabloat compared to those produced by
the older versions of delphi.
___
fpc-
> There is nothing in this article we can consider, for starters because
> it does not contain any proposals.
It even tries to give directions on how to and how to not use a tool.
Normally a tool proves itself usefull by being usefull in some way for
someone. Now we got a ultraflexible, even cha
On 5/12/07, Bisma Jayadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nicely put. ;) I've found it has good points on some arguments. It's good to be
considered. :)
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. I am allowed mine and
totally disagree with his statement about GUI's not being used on any
other platfo
On Sat, 12 May 2007, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
> http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Might%20As%20Well%20Use%20Dot%20Net%20In%20Place%20of%20FPC
>
> Nicely put. ;) I've found it has good points on some arguments. It's good to
> be considered. :)
Yes, but the language used puts off some peopl
Marco van de Voort schrieb:
>> Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
>>> P.s. I also don't get the "64-bit" gaming speed remark. What does a game do
>>> with 64-bit? Load 4 GB of textures on startup?
>> Games will be among the first end user applications that really need >
>> 4GB. Comme
> Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
> > P.s. I also don't get the "64-bit" gaming speed remark. What does a game do
> > with 64-bit? Load 4 GB of textures on startup?
>
> Games will be among the first end user applications that really need >
> 4GB. Commercial games currently releas
Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef Marco van de Voort:
> > Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef Bisma Jayadi:
> > There is nothing in this article we can consider, for starters because it
> > does not contain any proposals.
> P.s. I also don't get the "64-bit" gaming speed remark. What does a game do
> with
> Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef Bisma Jayadi:
> There is nothing in this article we can consider, for starters because it
> does not contain any proposals.
Moreover it lacks a sense for magnitude. What can be saved in the sysutils
that is so dreaded by him is 40-80kb. (and then I really remove it.
No, it is not good to be considered. He complains we don't care about
speed or size. I have to correct him: We care, if we can optimize
something we will. As a proof FPC 2.2 will both generate faster code and
generate smaller exes.
I believe FPC people do really care about speed and size since
Bisma Jayadi schrieb:
> http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Might%20As%20Well%20Use%20Dot%20Net%20In%20Place%20of%20FPC
So a 3 MB lcl/lazarus application is bigger than a .Net framework? I
know a lot of computers neither having 1.1, 2.0 or 3.x installed
including mine. BTW: Why unstripped?
Op Sat, 12 May 2007, schreef Bisma Jayadi:
> http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Might%20As%20Well%20Use%20Dot%20Net%20In%20Place%20of%20FPC
>
> Nicely put. ;) I've found it has good points on some arguments. It's good to
> be considered. :)
No, it is not good to be considered. He comp
http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Might%20As%20Well%20Use%20Dot%20Net%20In%20Place%20of%20FPC
Nicely put. ;) I've found it has good points on some arguments. It's good to be
considered. :)
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at:
http://beeography.wordpress.com
___
44 matches
Mail list logo
