On Sat, 7 Apr 2018 16:09:29 +0100, Graeme Geldenhuys
wrote:
> I much prefer NNTP newsgroups to the much slower and often ad-driven
> web forums, or mailing lists. Plus I can easily download all messages
> (dating back to 2006) for offline viewing and searching with my
> favourite NNTP client
Ryan Joseph schrieb am Mi., 25. Apr. 2018,
15:38:
> Certainly this is a crutch because there isn’t a full ARC system. I see it
> as an easy solution and a quick fix to get a little more utility out of the
> language without overhauling everything.
What you are suggesting is neither an easy nor
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 16:43:30 +0200 (CEST)
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> Ah, webgl...
>
> I had a look at this some time ago, and got depressed.
Can you elaborate?
R.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.o
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018 22:14:17 +0700
Ryan Joseph wrote:
> ... and Android is all Java right?
AFAICR it's now Kotlin, Java, C++ and FPC in order of support and ease of use.
R.
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freep
Well with an attitude like that, here's hoping you leave the pascal
community sooner than later :)
On 04/25/2018 11:19 AM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Apr 25, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Alexander Grotewohl wrote:
At work I've recently used Free Pascal to interface our accounting system to
our WordPress
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 10:07 PM, Alexander Grotewohl wrote:
>
> At work I've recently used Free Pascal to interface our accounting system to
> our WordPress WooCommerce store using Free Pascal's built in JSON support,
> fphttpclient, etc.
>
> I could list off a bunch of new languages with goo
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 9:18 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> Available libraries for common programming tasks - and I mean this on a
> high-level
> level - are infinitely more important, so I don't need to get down to the
> gory details of many tasks:
what kind of applications are people
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 9:27 PM, Dennis wrote:
>
> People new to iOS will learn swift because it allows them easily call all
> the libraries of iOS, not because swift is better than Pascal or Java.
It’s worse than that because Apple has designed Swift to work with how their
frameworks are de
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Alexander Grotewohl wrote:
At work I've recently used Free Pascal to interface our accounting system to
our WordPress WooCommerce store using Free Pascal's built in JSON support,
fphttpclient, etc.
I could list off a bunch of new languages with goofy names that could ha
At work I've recently used Free Pascal to interface our accounting
system to our WordPress WooCommerce store using Free Pascal's built in
JSON support, fphttpclient, etc.
I could list off a bunch of new languages with goofy names that could
have done it, but Free Pascal did it just fine.
Jus
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ingemar Ragnemalm wrote:
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Hello,
Now that interface support has been added to the list of implemented
language
features of pas2js, we're looking to get feedback on what best to tackle
next.
This time, the poll is not on the forum, so you
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Hello,
Now that interface support has been added to the list of implemented language
features of pas2js, we're looking to get feedback on what best to tackle next.
This time, the poll is not on the forum, so you do not need to have an
account to vote.
Here is a link
Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
I want the same for pascal.
But I really still need to see convincing evidence that language
features contribute to productivity.
Available libraries for common programming tasks - and I mean this on
a high-level
level - are infinitely more important, so I don'
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Apr 25, 2018, at 8:42 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
'make it competitive with new entries in the market' is not a goal of the
free pascal team.
This is a hobby project for most devs. Monetary gain is not a goal.
Probably sounds like an anachro
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 9:00 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
>
> Do you know MSElang objects?
> https://gitlab.com/mseide-msegui/mselang/wikis/home/mselang_objects
I agree with you on this point, and it’s what I prefer FPC be like but adopting
a new variant of Pascal and new compiler is just beyond
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 8:59 PM, Maciej Izak wrote:
>
> 4. finish work for closures
Having closures in FPC would be a major milestone.
> 5. few parts of extended RTTI
> 6. aspects
what’s aspects?
>
> after point "3" new mode has more sense but after "6" is rather obligatory ;).
>
Don’t for
On 04/25/2018 03:52 PM, Ryan Joseph wrote:
>
> The team has done a good job keeping up with the best (or at least popular)
> new ideas in programming (like Generics, records with methods, interfaces)
> and that’s why I like to share what ever ideas I have in case they’re useful.
Do you know MSE
2018-04-25 15:38 GMT+02:00 Ryan Joseph :
> Are there actual plans to make a new dialect of FPC?
Yes this is possible but for now it has not much sense. My personal roadmap
:
1. clean up few things for Generics.Collections and some bug fixes for
generics
2. merge for FastRTTI ( https://github.co
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 8:42 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> 'make it competitive with new entries in the market' is not a goal of the
> free pascal team.
>
> This is a hobby project for most devs. Monetary gain is not a goal.
>
> Probably sounds like an anachronism in this day and age, b
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Apr 25, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
Fundamental changes in the object model are never minor. Delphi/Object
Pascal does not allow static objects, so that is a big thing.
I guess I’m not seeing this same way as others are. It seem
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> Fundamental changes in the object model are never minor. Delphi/Object
> Pascal does not allow static objects, so that is a big thing.
I guess I’m not seeing this same way as others are. It seems like if we have a
stack of static me
Hello,
Now that interface support has been added to the list of implemented language
features of pas2js, we're looking to get feedback on what best to tackle next.
This time, the poll is not on the forum, so you do not need to have an
account to vote.
Here is a link to the poll:
https://docs.
In our previous episode, Ryan Joseph said:
> >
> > Yes, I can vaguely see some minor syntactic sugar benefits of a
> > autoinstantiation object. (preferably done in a delphi compatible way)
> > Though IMHO improving the IDE wizards to create the skeletons more
> > efficiently (declare-create-try
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Apr 25, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
No, because it introduces additional complications.
We can think of extending the features of objects or advanced records.
Your proposal entails a very different model of handling, which match
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> Ah, no the original code had two mistakes, the new code only one (the double
> free).
>
> It does illustrate that the finalization of every object would have to be in
> its own try finally block though.
Sorry guys that was technical
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 7:05 PM, Michael Van Canneyt
> wrote:
>
> No, because it introduces additional complications.
>
> We can think of extending the features of objects or advanced records.
> Your proposal entails a very different model of handling, which matches more
> how objects and reco
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:52 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> The problem is that the C++ object model is more complex and tiered because
> of it. Also the Pascal class mode has complications of its own (like the
> multi stage constructor system and its link to exceptions) that might be
> addit
In our previous episode, Marco van de Voort said:
> In our previous episode, Ryan Joseph said:
> > > I think if you want to pursue this, you must be much more concrete. Both
> > > the
> > > benefits and the potential pitfalls.
> >
> > What are the potential pitfalls?
>
> I was thinking more abo
On Wed, 25 Apr 2018, Ryan Joseph wrote:
On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:14 PM, Adrian Veith wrote:
If you know what you are doing, you have exactly the "object" type for
that. You can allocate them on the stack or heap and you can inherit
from them, when you need virtual methods the initialization
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 6:14 PM, Adrian Veith wrote:
>
> If you know what you are doing, you have exactly the "object" type for
> that. You can allocate them on the stack or heap and you can inherit
> from them, when you need virtual methods the initialization is a bit
> strange (and if you need
In our previous episode, Ryan Joseph said:
> > I think if you want to pursue this, you must be much more concrete. Both the
> > benefits and the potential pitfalls.
>
> What are the potential pitfalls?
I was thinking more about complicating the constructor case, but then I saw
the code you poste
In our previous episode, Ryan Joseph said:
In our previous episode, Ryan Joseph said:
> > Most seem to be covered already by having records-with-methods. The only
> > issue is that it is a different kind of "object?.
>
> I like C++ because because you opt into stack or heap at any point. If you
>
Am 25.04.2018 um 08:34 schrieb Ryan Joseph:
>
>> On Apr 25, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
>> wrote:
>>
>> No. This would more often than not lead to accidents were users pass such an
>> instance to some outer code (it doesn't even need to the routine with the
>> stack object, bu
On Tue, 24 Apr 2018, Guionardo Furlan wrote:
Hello guys
I´ve a single code to encrypt/decrypt strings using Blowfish.
function TBlowFishCripto.Encrypt(const Value: string): string;
var
en: TBlowFishEncryptStream;
stream: TStringStream;
begin
{ 4 }
s2 := TStringStream.Create(encrypted);
On 25/04/18 03:56, Guionardo Furlan wrote:
> Hello guys
>
> I´ve a single code to encrypt/decrypt strings using Blowfish.
>
> function TBlowFishCripto.Encrypt(const Value: string): string;
> var
> en: TBlowFishEncryptStream;
> stream: TStringStream;
> begin
> if length(Value) = 0 then
> beg
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> I think if you want to pursue this, you must be much more concrete. Both the
> benefits and the potential pitfalls.
What are the potential pitfalls? Sven pointed out passing around pointers but
don’t we know better than this since w
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 3:22 PM, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> Most seem to be covered already by having records-with-methods. The only
> issue is that it is a different kind of "object”.
I like C++ because because you opt into stack or heap at any point. If you use
a record then you’re stuck
> On Apr 25, 2018, at 12:59 PM, Sven Barth via fpc-pascal
> wrote:
>
> The memory model of classes in Object Pascal is heap based. Changing that is
> asking for trouble and I for one don't even want to fiddle around with that,
> because I don't see any real benefit in it (and yes I daily wor
In our previous episode, Ryan Joseph said:
>
> But putting classes on the stack is a core feature which is very well used
> and great for performance (why people still use c++ for games). Why isn?t
> that useful?
Most seem to be covered already by having records-with-methods. The only
issue is t
39 matches
Mail list logo
