On Mon, 21 Sep 2015, Michael Schnell wrote:
On 09/21/2015 01:50 PM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Just to be clear, using threads in this case didn't require Synchronize()
either - because Synchronize() is purely there for GUI apps, which this
wasn't.
Of course it is *possible* (it even is _possible_ to code a complete
application with a hex editor :-) ) But this is a point of view I don't share
at all.
To me it is a very bad idea to have the Lazarus users use completely
different paradigms for common stuff like timers, Worker-Thread-responses,
and - in the end - the makeup of a project (as a number of events scheduled
by the infrastructure vs as a thing that needs a loop just for waiting on
anything).
Nowadays, even very small embedded boards do have GUI support. So it's not
very important to have a NoGUI application like I did (just for fun, when I
still had some spare time). You simply can always tolerate a link to a GUI
framework an let same do it's thing, even if nobody will ever see it.
No. Because it will simply fail to run on a headless system.
We have countless virtual machines for webservers.
None of them has X or X libraries installed. And that is as it should be.
The software should run on those, and that will not be the case if you allow
such dirty hacks.
So you are totally wrong in your argument.
Michael.
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
