In our previous episode, "Vinzent H?fler" said: > > And the criticism about introducing Cisms in FPC/Delphi is also old. In > > the past I would have joined you, but after a few non-trivial header > > conversions and library conversions that pretty much died out. > > Yes. But that's not the fault of the C-language. That's the fault of > sloppy C-programmers. Keywords like "const" to express intent exist for > more than 10 years now.
The problem of C is that the language is so poor that large codebases always resort to macros and other tricks that make automated conversion unreliable. But this was not meant as a problem of either C or Pascal, just a reality of conversion from C to Pascal. > > Likewise you also get > > tired when you need to update some header (or code like zlib,jpeg) and > > have to guess what the purpose and consequences of some pascallization > > are. > > That simply means, the code is not documented. Again: Not entirely C's fault. Docs. Like anybody reads them. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
