On Thursday 16 March 2006 23:12, L505 wrote:
> I always harp on this fact - for example perl is written in C, python
> is written in C, php is written in C, but if you want to learn from
> the sources why shouldn't it be python is written in python and php
> is written with a php compiler. And we
On Thursday 16 March 2006 16:35, memsom wrote:
> Pascal on Linux etc is niche.
Yeah, that has always been my problem. Programming for environments and
in languages that are usually both considered niche.
Nonetheless I do it. And I even get fucking paid for it. And most
important: It really wor
On 3/17/06, Gökhan Ersumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep, I said so (on last paragraph) but IMO this is
> bad for maintanence and/or component writers.
I wrote TTrayIcon component to implement multiplatform system tray and
also did a lot of things on the Qt interface for Lazarus, and also
start
>Message: 5
>Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 18:15:45 -0300
>From: "Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho"
>>On 3/16/06, Gökhan Ersumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Yep I meant creating VMT at runtime,It does not
seems
>> like a good practice to me.
>Where is the code that creates VMT at runtime? Just
>curiosity,
> One of the things I think works best for lazarus is that it is written in the
> same language it uses - so every user is a potential contributor (unlike most
> programs and IDE's users typically CAN program) which is why I think it has
> such an amazing rate of expansion - we must be averaging a
Hi,
I' like to know how I should write code for different system. SInce I'm
no Linux user nor have any experience on MacOS I need to know how to
wrap platform dependant code.
Since I'm still fiddling with reading the serial port I have the idea
that linux and even MacOS may be very similar to my
> There is no reason why Lazarys would/will not become production ready.
> Proof: It is in production use already.
As one of the production users - I can vouch for this. There are several
others on this list whom I know are doing production work in Lazarus as well,
Graeme and Tony for starters.
> > What he meant is that supporting fpc/lazarus development
> > is a quite more tangible task than trying to buy and support delphi.
>
> No, he said "Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of
> doing that?". Tha is a large dig at Delphi.
Correct.
> Until FPD is completely
> c
On 3/16/06, Gökhan Ersumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yep I meant creating VMT at runtime,It does not seems
> like a good practice to me.
Where is the code that creates VMT at runtime? Just curiosity, because
I've being working with Lazarus, but I never noticed it.
It probably doesn't matter fr
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Gökhan Ersumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > User-level delphi compatibility is enough for masses
> > (e.g Form designer, properties vs), as long as it have
> > quality/stability, internal workings of components is
> > not so importan
On 3/16/06, Gökhan Ersumer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> User-level delphi compatibility is enough for masses
> (e.g Form designer, properties vs), as long as it have
> quality/stability, internal workings of components is
> not so important, but as I said above, with current
> implementation I don
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 08:24:12 -0800 (PST)
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:13:57 +0100
> From: Mattias Gaertner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: OpenDelphi.org
> To: FPC-Pascal users discussions
>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US
On 3/16/06, memsom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The include files are evil unless the IDE auto inlines them into the
> sourcefile.
Now, that is an awesome idea... but you would need the +/- in the
gutter (side bar?) in cas we talk about multiple includes based on
defines clauses... and save the in
- Original Message -
From: "Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "FPC-Pascal users discussions"
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 9:02 AM
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: OpenDelphi.org
> I'm not complaining, just saying that the source is sometimes hard to
> figure out for so
Hey, great idea! How come I never thought of it? ;-)
It'll be on my to-do list for SynEdit :-)
-Flávio
On 3/16/06, memsom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Note that there have been discussions in the past that e.g. for release
> > purposes could be generated per platform that has the necessary in
On 3/16/06, Alexandre Leclerc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there any way to simplify that and still be multi-platform very
> > easely? Indeed, that is very much hard to track down the units. (In
> > comparison, Delphi is cleaner, but it is not as multi-platform /
> > multi-GUI as laz is.)
> T
Agreed. But talking about being realistic, buying delphi and supporting it
seems quite an unrealistic attempt too.
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:40:03 -0300, memsom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What he meant is that supporting fpc/lazarus development
is a quite more tangible task than trying to buy and
> Note that there have been discussions in the past that e.g. for release
> purposes could be generated per platform that has the necessary includes
> inlined. It is just the matter of finding sb to write the generator.
That would have been me complaining ;-)
The include files are evil unless th
memsom wrote:
>>> I'm sure Lazerus is a fine IDE, but it is not on a par with BDS.
>> That depends on the POV. Lazarus has a lot of things Delphi/BDS doesn't
>> have
>> like multiplatform support and a good optimizing compiler etc, so you can
>> also
>> easily say BDS isn't on a par with FPC/Lazaru
> What he meant is that supporting fpc/lazarus development
> is a quite more tangible task than trying to buy and support delphi.
No, he said "Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of
doing that?". Tha is a large dig at Delphi. Until FPD is completely
compatible with Delphi 5 on
>> I'm sure Lazerus is a fine IDE, but it is not on a par with BDS.
>
> That depends on the POV. Lazarus has a lot of things Delphi/BDS doesn't
> have
> like multiplatform support and a good optimizing compiler etc, so you can
> also
> easily say BDS isn't on a par with FPC/Lazarus :)
You're suf
Am Donnerstag, den 16.03.2006, 09:24 +0100 schrieb Marco van de Voort:
> While I'm not a .NET lover (I wrote the FPC section on .NET), but while
> we all know that .NET is at best M$'s copy of Java, that doesn't mean that
This will change with version 3 of .net, I looked at an article in the
ger
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2006 01:13:57 +0100
From: Mattias Gaertner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: OpenDelphi.org
To: FPC-Pascal users discussions
Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 15:57:23 -0800 (PST)
>
>
> --
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>> I'm not complaining, just saying that the source is sometimes hard to
>> figure out for some people, like me (I must say I did not went in it
>> that much).
>
> The problem is not include files, the problem is that the code needs
> better comments and better d
> I'm not complaining, just saying that the source is sometimes hard to
> figure out for some people, like me (I must say I did not went in it
> that much).
The problem is not include files, the problem is that the code needs
better comments and better documentation.
> > Includefiles are not evil
On Thursday 16 March 2006 08:24, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> While I'm not a .NET lover (I wrote the FPC section on .NET), but
> while we all know that .NET is at best M$'s copy of Java,
Well, it may be a copy, but if you take a closer look at it, it's
actually better than Java, at least on the
On 3/16/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 3/16/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > How can you check Delphi's source for cleanness ? It is not available,
> > > except for a few modules like RTL,VCL.
> >
> > Well Marco, I was talking about the "RTL, VCL" pa
On 3/16/06, Vincent Snijders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
> > On 3/16/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>How can you check Delphi's source for cleanness ? It is not available,
> >>except for a few modules like RTL,VCL.
> >
> >
> > Well Marco, I was ta
Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
On 3/16/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
How can you check Delphi's source for cleanness ? It is not available,
except for a few modules like RTL,VCL.
Well Marco, I was talking about the "RTL, VCL" part, not the source of
the actual devel tool, inter
> On 3/16/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How can you check Delphi's source for cleanness ? It is not available,
> > except for a few modules like RTL,VCL.
>
> Well Marco, I was talking about the "RTL, VCL" part, not the source of
> the actual devel tool, interface, etc. Only
On 3/16/06, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/16/06, Alexandre Leclerc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Is there any way to simplify that and still be multi-platform very
> > easely? Indeed, that is very much hard to track down the units. (In
> > comparison, Delphi is clea
On 3/16/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can you check Delphi's source for cleanness ? It is not available,
> except for a few modules like RTL,VCL.
Well Marco, I was talking about the "RTL, VCL" part, not the source of
the actual devel tool, interface, etc. Only from the po
On 3/16/06, Alexandre Leclerc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any way to simplify that and still be multi-platform very
> easely? Indeed, that is very much hard to track down the units. (In
> comparison, Delphi is cleaner, but it is not as multi-platform /
> multi-GUI as laz is.)
This kind o
> On 3/15/06, L505 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What do you mean hacking class parents? What I noticed was tons and tons of
> > abstraction and tons and tons of layering. So much layering that when I try
> > to
> > find a bug, I go into the code and start chasing hundreds of units looking
> > f
On 3/15/06, L505 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What do you mean hacking class parents? What I noticed was tons and tons of
> abstraction and tons and tons of layering. So much layering that when I try to
> find a bug, I go into the code and start chasing hundreds of units looking for
> the real piec
Adriaan van Os wrote:
> Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
>
>> Bisma Jayadi wrote:
>>
>>> IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
>>> and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking
>>> technically, I saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a
>>> combination
Nice post,
- the framework is huge. This is more important than it seems. Less
components to buy, more people using a standarised set of
components. It has its attraction.
On Thu, 16 Mar 2006 05:24:51 -0300, Marco van de Voort
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Tottaly agree, this has been microsoft
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
Bisma Jayadi wrote:
IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking
technically, I saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a
combination of Java (on the system architecture) and Del
sorry for doing this, but i got a bounce on a list reply.
will this message go through ?
--
X-SA user ? 0.5.1 is out !
XData 0.1 for X-SA is out !
http://x-plane.dsrts.com
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/x-plane-foo/
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-
I have written a procedure TestVar
Procedure TestVar;
Begin
End;
If I look at the assembler code, it looks like the compiler allocates 40
bytes on the stack. Is there anybody who knows the reason for this?
Regards Carsten
Free Pascal Compiler version 2.0.2 [2006/02/28] for arm
Copyright (c)
> On Thursday 16 March 2006 04:17, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
>
> > IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
> > and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking
> > technically, I saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a
> > combination of Java (on the sy
On Thursday 16 March 2006 04:17, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
> IMO, .Net is just a bussiness buzz from M$ to attract their customers
> and prevent them from switching to Un*x systems. Speaking
> technically, I saw nothing new in the .Net technology. It's just a
> combination of Java (on the system archite
42 matches
Mail list logo
