On 4 June 2010 17:03, Jonas Maebe jonas.ma...@elis.ugent.be wrote:
is a hit, it's a good way to encourage customers to upgrade. In our case
it's primarily a good way to get complaints :)
The big difference you are overlooking is that in a open-source
environment you get to see what is happening
On 04 Jun 2010, at 12:54, spir wrote:
I'm surprised of this, fpc still systematically trying to follow Delphi,
after so many years.
In some ways we follow Delphi (mostly language features), in other ways Delphi
follows us (e.g. platform support). Delphi and FPC are part of the same
Hello,
I would like to point out that the original message is completely
missguided, because FPC supports various Pascal dialects using the
{$mode } directives, therefore it is possible to support Delphi mode,
FPC mode, WhateverYouInvented mode, etc.
There is no reason to drop any mode if you
On 4 June 2010 18:57, Jonas Maebe wrote:
The main goal is implementing stuff we care about. If Delphi already
implemented
something similar, then unless there is an extremely good reason for doing
things
differently, it is stupid to implement it in a different way simply because
you
On 04 Jun 2010, at 19:27, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
This brings me to another question. Don't you guys feel that FPC is
good enough to stand on it's own feet.
It has nothing to do with being good enough or not. Please read the mail you
replied to again (second paragraph I wrote).
So what's
On 4 June 2010 19:04, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
So the original suggestion doesn't make sense. If you don't like
{$mode Delphi}, don't use it, use another mode, or create your own.
That only affects language features doesn't it? What about classes in
the RTL, eg: the workings of TWriter,
On 4 June 2010 19:51, Jonas Maebe wrote:
As I said in the mail you replied to (first paragraph I wrote): FPC and Delphi
are part of the same ecosystem. If you keep looking at it as if it is about
us versus them, you will probably remain unhappy forever with how
FPC evolves, because it will
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
The main goal is implementing stuff we care about. If Delphi already
implemented
something similar, then unless there is an extremely good reason for doing
things
differently, it is stupid to implement it in a different way simply
On 4 June 2010 19:37, Graeme Geldenhuys graemeg.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4 June 2010 19:51, Jonas Maebe wrote:
As I said in the mail you replied to (first paragraph I wrote): FPC and
Delphi
are part of the same ecosystem. If you keep looking at it as if it is about
us versus them, you will
You are living a dream if you think they care about FPC, so why the
hell care about them.
As said before, a lot of fpc users care, see bug tracker. And as long as
I didn't care much about TP, FPC was a one man show: from 1993 to 1996 I
developed FPC alone and cared only little about TP, this
On 4 June 2010 21:09, Jonas Maebe wrote:
supporting the same language and run time environment has advantages both for
the
FPC developers (by lack of an official standard to aim for, a de fact
standard is a nice
alternative guideline)
Why didn't you just say that from the start! ;-)
I
11 matches
Mail list logo
