On Thu, 11 May 2006 13:36:23 -0600
L505 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[...]
> > > There are advantages and disadvantages of using real code versus using
> > > DFM files. DFM files are a cleaner format than actual Pascal code.
> > > Real code is easier to peak into and copy/paste than DFM files (but
> > Back when I started using delphi, I wondered what black magic was creating
> > my forms for me? Why couldn't I see and tap in to the code that created my
> > forms? I guess curiosity kills the cat.
>
> You can edit the .dfm. Just not the form and the dfm at the same time.
The DFM never told me
On Thu, 11 May 2006 12:03:59 -0600
L505 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > 2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
> > > >
> > > > What are the advantages?
> > >
> > > Easier component creation control/management via ONE language.
> >
> > 1) Please do not forget, that then
On Thu, 11 May 2006, [UTF-8] BogusÅaw Brandys wrote:
> As an answer just look into way in which wxWidgets framework is
> developed - XML based dialogs in zip file and totally separate source
> code (with only some functions to load and initiate dialogs).
> Completely separated GUI and logical
> > > > 2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
> > >
> > > What are the advantages?
> >
> > Easier component creation control/management via ONE language.
>
> 1) Please do not forget, that then you will be able to Search /
> Replace on component properties if they are in code
As an answer just look into way in which wxWidgets framework is
developed - XML based dialogs in zip file and totally separate source
code (with only some functions to load and initiate dialogs).
Completely separated GUI and logical code! This is positive,and Lazarus
is not too much behind this
2006/5/11, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Al Boldi wrote:
> Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>> On Thu, 11 May 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:
>>> Al Boldi wrote:
>> 2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
>
> What are the advantages?
> Greetings!
Hi.
> Congrats for the delphi replacement.
I think these guys are doing a great job. It's open source,
so everybody can contibute...
(I have some components I going to share).
> 1. Lazarus ?!? Cheetah would be a better name, IMHO!
The original name was "Megido", a japanese word.
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Al Boldi wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
What are the advantages?
Easier component creation control/management via ONE language.
Management o
Al Boldi wrote:
Separation of layout and behaviour would still hold, only w/o requiring a
special scripting language.
It is not a language, let alone a scripting language. It's just PROP =
VAL basically, but in OO-style.
Micha
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> On Thu, 11 May 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> > Al Boldi wrote:
> 2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
> >>>
> >>> What are the advantages?
> >>
> >> Easier component creation control/management via ONE language.
> >
> > Management of custom
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:
Al Boldi wrote:
2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
What are the advantages?
Easier component creation control/management via ONE language.
Management of custom modified code is a PITA and will be a failure for big
com
Al Boldi wrote:
2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
What are the advantages?
Easier component creation control/management via ONE language.
Management of custom modified code is a PITA and will be a failure for
big complex forms. Separate DFM/LFM is one *the* best
On 10/05/06, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
>
> What are the advantages?
Easier component creation control/management via ONE language.
1) Please do not forget, that then you will be able to Search /
Replace on component pr
Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 1. Lazarus ?!? Cheetah would be a better name, IMHO!
>
> Sounds like cheater.
I know.
> May be good, may be bad.
Definitely good ;)
> > 3. Allow to link in other langs (via plugin eclipse style).
>
> You can link to other langua
On Wed, 10 May 2006, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 23:08:33 +0300
> Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Greetings!
> >
> > Congrats for the delphi replacement.
>
> Thanks.
> Although it is a little bit humiliating to call lazarus a 'delphi
> replacement'. The biggest pa
On Wed, 10 May 2006 23:08:33 +0300
Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Greetings!
>
> Congrats for the delphi replacement.
Thanks.
Although it is a little bit humiliating to call lazarus a 'delphi
replacement'. The biggest part of the development time of FPC/Lazarus was
spent on features, t
Hello,
On 5/10/06, Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
What are the advantages?
dfm format is compatible with Delphi, so I can build the same software
with both.
3. Allow to link in other langs (via plugin eclipse style).
Pleas
Greetings!
Congrats for the delphi replacement.
It's rather neat, despite the following suggestions:
1. Lazarus ?!? Cheetah would be a better name, IMHO!
2. Replace the delphi dfm with a real code init (java style).
3. Allow to link in other langs (via plugin eclipse style).
Thanks!
--
Al
_
19 matches
Mail list logo
