On Thu, December 8, 2011 17:24, Jürgen Hestermann wrote: > Schindler Karl-Michael schrieb: >> How disgraceful is a replacement by a less accurate solution and how >> about the grace to implement your own solution ;-) >> >> > You miss the whole point. It's not a matter of coding effort but of > backwards compatibility with existing code and also with expectations of > people coming from Delphi/Turbo Pascal who not even question the speed > (and accuracy) of the random() function. Of course, there is a need for > both versions of random() but since decades I (and others) know it to be > fast but unreliable. In FPC it suddenly turned into an accurate (which I > didn't know so I would not even have used this reliablility) but slow > version (which breaks my code). > > In other situations the Delphi compatibilty is pulled up even if the > implementation is outrageous. But suddenly everybody wants to depart > from Delphi. Strange.
Since when does the definition of "compatibility" include the same speed? Could something become incompatible by being too fast too? I don't think that FPC has ever claimed performing functionality at the same speed as Delphi... Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
