On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 08:50:06 +0200
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Borland and Embarcadero jumps off
> the cliff - FPC must now also jump off the cliff. :)
Hello, Graeme!
I'm surprised of this, fpc still systematically trying to follow Delphi, after
so many years. I can understand that at the begin
Op 2010-06-04 12:54, spir het geskryf:
> (including choices of non-implementation), so why not having already
> made the step of declaring fpc a (object) Pascal dialect of its own?
I agree 100%. It was all good and well (in the beginning) to try and be a
Delphi clone, but now it makes no real se
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, spir wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jun 2010 08:50:06 +0200
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Borland and Embarcadero jumps off
the cliff - FPC must now also jump off the cliff. :)
Hello, Graeme!
I'm surprised of this, fpc still systematically trying to follow Delphi,
after so many years.
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:21:09 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> And to be honest, I think we do a very good job of it. Yes, we don't have
> 100% compatibility. But no, it's never 100%. But it is certainly good
> enough to satisfy most people that need it.
Hello, Michael!
No doubt about t
In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
>
> To many people inside and outside the FPC team, a high degree of Delphi
> compatibility is a must. For a simple reason: reuse of existing Delphi
> code, of which there is infinitely more than FPC code.
(see e.g. also the number of Delphi com
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, spir wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010 13:21:09 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
And to be honest, I think we do a very good job of it. Yes, we don't have
100% compatibility. But no, it's never 100%. But it is certainly good
enough to satisfy most people that need it.
H
On 4 June 2010 13:53, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> And porting 3rd party delphi code.
I've already ported OS/2 Pascal, C#, Java and C/C++ code to Free
Pascal. It's not that hard at all, so even if FPC is not very Delphi
compatible, porting will still be much easier than porting from other
languag
Op 2010-06-04 14:09, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
>
> Personally, I fail to understand what people are complaining about.
> I make my programs with the tools available, and they work damn well.
Michael, the thing is that sometimes somebody will come up with a better
idea for something - yes
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 4 June 2010 13:53, Marco van de Voort wrote:
And porting 3rd party delphi code.
I've already ported OS/2 Pascal, C#, Java and C/C++ code to Free
Pascal. It's not that hard at all, so even if FPC is not very Delphi
compatible, porting will sti
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Op 2010-06-04 14:09, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
Personally, I fail to understand what people are complaining about.
I make my programs with the tools available, and they work damn well.
Michael, the thing is that sometimes somebody will co
The other problem with Delphi Compatibility is that not even the FPC
team knows which version of Delphi we are supposed to be Delphi
compatible with.
Of course we know: given infinite time, we would support all. Given the
limited time we have, we support the stuff we think being important. If
Op 2010-06-04 14:58, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
> And as for 'improve quickly':
> - Where are the donations ?
> - Where are the developers ?
> As soon as someone pays me my salary to work full-time on FPC:
> there will be REAL quick improvement; I guarantee it.
I have many things I would l
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> > And porting 3rd party delphi code.
>
> I've already ported OS/2 Pascal, C#, Java and C/C++ code to Free
> Pascal. It's not that hard at all, so even if FPC is not very Delphi
> compatible, porting will still be much easier than porting from othe
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> And if it is just a
> "hobby" to the core developers, why then so damn strict with accepting
> improvements (patches, alternative designs etc)?
Hobby doesn't mean we don't care. And it doesn't eliminate a decade (and
longer) experience in develop
Op 2010-06-04 15:45, Florian Klaempfl het geskryf:
> of stuff. Of course, a patch breaking existing stuff will be accepted
> less likely.
And yet Embarcadero is ok with breaking compatibility - if it means
improving the product. Yet core developers from FPC and its "hobby project"
can't get over
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> Op 2010-06-04 15:45, Florian Klaempfl het geskryf:
> > of stuff. Of course, a patch breaking existing stuff will be accepted
> > less likely.
>
> And yet Embarcadero is ok with breaking compatibility - if it means
> improving the product. Yet cor
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Op 2010-06-04 14:58, Michael Van Canneyt het geskryf:
And as for 'improve quickly':
- Where are the donations ?
- Where are the developers ?
As soon as someone pays me my salary to work full-time on FPC:
there will be REAL quick improvement; I guar
Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
Op 2010-06-04 15:45, Florian Klaempfl het geskryf:
of stuff. Of course, a patch breaking existing stuff will be accepted
less likely.
And yet Embarcadero is ok with breaking compatibility - if it means
improving the product. Yet core developers from FPC and its "hobb
On Fri, 4 Jun 2010, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Op 2010-06-04 15:45, Florian Klaempfl het geskryf:
of stuff. Of course, a patch breaking existing stuff will be accepted
less likely.
And yet Embarcadero is ok with breaking compatibility - if it means
improving the product.
That is also the re
Hello,
This discussion is interesting, but it's a meta-discussion that is
overwhelming this list due to its sheer volume. So let's please move
it to the fpc-other list.
Thanks,
Jonas
FPC mailing lists admin
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pas
20 matches
Mail list logo
