On 2010-07-15 06:30, Marco van de Voort wrote:
In our previous episode, Luiz Americo Pereira Camara said:
(I seem to have failed to receive Adem's msg, so I might reply to him sometimes)
After being told off being off topic, I decided not to bother this list
again; but even though my initial message on this subject was a private
email, which --through nobody's fault-- wound up being replied to the
list, hence I am replying to the list. Sorry.
Not that i think this is a big issue but, AFAIK, mixing licenses are not
so straightforward even if is toward a more liberal.
MPL is said to be GPL incompatible. VST is also LGPL (but without exception)
I don't agree with that. But, I have no intention of starting an endless
discussion on it either.
All I'd be suggesting, at this point, is to ask Mike. I doubt if he
would refuse the exception --whyever it is necessary, I have no idea.
Agree. Just two points:
Creating classes is significantly more expensive than records, which can be
mass cheaply allocated, cheaply initialized and their allocations are more
tightly packed.
That being so, IIRC, speed difference wasn't that significant when I did
refactor VT to use pure objects.
Similarly, again IIRC, memory impact wasn't significan either --nodes
were already large enough.
But, there are significant advantages --at least AFAIC: The first and
most important one is the unintuitive nature of VT, as far as node
addition etc. are concerned.
Secondly, deriving new node classes were major pain: You had to know and
juggle far too many balls in the air. I am not saying it wasn't doable
(even I have done a few myself), but for a casual developer VT is hell
--IMO-- to use for different purposes.
It would make it more troublesome for large scale users. (and yes, such
things are still noticable)
True.
For that, I would suggest keeping the classic version around both for
speed/memory reasons and legacy code, but rename the new version
something else so that they can both coexist in the same IDE.
-This is a feature to be implemented in version 5x:
http://code.google.com/p/virtual-treeview/issues/detail?id=3 . The LCL
port will take advantage as soon is implemented (and released) there.
I don't read that there? Sb suggests it, and half shoot it down, half not?
AFAIT, they are at the initial stages of discussions --but, I haven't
read any more than that link either.
Cheers,
Adem
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
