> On 5 okt 2006, at 19:56, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > But we can cut this discussion short. I'd _LOVE_ to see FPC run on
> > bytecode.
> > If you find such a compiler, compile the compiler with it ( :-) )
>
> Since FPC is written in the FPC dialect, probably the only thing that
> will ev
On 5 okt 2006, at 19:56, Marco van de Voort wrote:
But we can cut this discussion short. I'd _LOVE_ to see FPC run on
bytecode.
If you find such a compiler, compile the compiler with it ( :-) )
Since FPC is written in the FPC dialect, probably the only thing that
will ever compile it is F
> For future reference, someone sent me a link of a commercial pascal
> compiler that generates java bytecode:
>
> http://www.mhccorp.com/pascal.html
>
> It claims to be compatible with Delphi 2 (not sure if it supports VCL)
> and targets J2SE.
Canterbury yes, pretty wellknown. Quite OK, but now
For future reference, someone sent me a link of a commercial pascal
compiler that generates java bytecode:
http://www.mhccorp.com/pascal.html
It claims to be compatible with Delphi 2 (not sure if it supports VCL)
and targets J2SE.
There is also MidLET Pascal, that targets J2ME, but it´s abandon
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Your statement answers the question
> > 'what is the use of a Java port of Free Pascal'
> >
> > My statement is
> > 'There is no use for a language that runs in a VM, like Ja
On 10/4/06, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO the correct way is to gain access to the native API's, not add support
Java.
In the case of phones, there is no native API.
The hardware isn´t documented, and the underlying OS also isn´t. There
is no way to write a native applica
On 10/4/06, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Your statement answers the question
'what is the use of a Java port of Free Pascal'
My statement is
'There is no use for a language that runs in a VM, like Java or .NET'
These 2 statements can peacefully coexist.
Ummm ... I have dou
On 10/4/06, Wolfe, Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Along
these lines, I was wondering if anyone had built FPC for Windows
Mobile 5.0 by any chance?
Just use the Windows CE Lazarus snapshot. It should work for Windows
Mobile 5.0 afaik. You can find a download link to that snapshot on the
lazarus wi
.org
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:fpc-pascal-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonas Maebe
> Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 11:06 AM
> To: FPC-Pascal users discussions
> Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] .NET FAQ
>
>
> On 4 okt 2006, at 15:21, Flor
On 4 okt 2006, at 15:21, Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Well, I'am still waiting for the java killer application for a
mobile ;) Most java applications for mobiles I saw were simply a
pain: inconsistent user interface, dog slow, freezing the phone etc.
Quite possible, but we obviously have FPC u
Jonas Maebe schrieb:
On 04 Oct 2006, at 14:26, Marco van de Voort wrote:
IMHO the correct way is to gain access to the native API's, not add
support
Java.
It's not, because then your application will potentially only work on a
specific phone model, possibly even only on a single revision o
>
> On 04 Oct 2006, at 14:26, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> > IMHO the correct way is to gain access to the native API's, not add
> > support
> > Java.
>
> It's not, because then your application will potentially only work on
> a specific phone model.
Yes. However that is the vendors proble
On 04 Oct 2006, at 14:26, Marco van de Voort wrote:
IMHO the correct way is to gain access to the native API's, not add
support
Java.
It's not, because then your application will potentially only work on
a specific phone model, possibly even only on a single revision of a
particular pho
> On 10/4/06, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Cut all your text out, I agree with most of if, but I just want to point out
> > that I am not a proponent of a .NET port, far from it. I don't see the use
> > of .NET, or Java for that matter, or any other language that runs in a VM.
On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> On 10/4/06, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Cut all your text out, I agree with most of if, but I just want to point out
> > that I am not a proponent of a .NET port, far from it. I don't see the use
> > of .NET, or Java
On 10/4/06, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Cut all your text out, I agree with most of if, but I just want to point out
that I am not a proponent of a .NET port, far from it. I don't see the use
of .NET, or Java for that matter, or any other language that runs in a VM...
Java is
On 10/4/06, Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> HOWEVER, even _if_ I give you the Borland case (I don't, but everybody is
> entitled to his own opinion of course, and everybody can be wrong), do you
> think that philosophy holds true
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>
> HOWEVER, even _if_ I give you the Borland case (I don't, but everybody is
> entitled to his own opinion of course, and everybody can be wrong), do you
> think that philosophy holds true for us too?
Cut all your text out, I agree with most of if
I sent this once already. Sorry if it duplicated, but I didn't see it
showing up on the list:
JMO:
The last thing we want the FPC team to consider is a port to .NET. Delphi
already does .net, and MSFT C# does it even better. Additionally, porting to
.net invites FPC to become mired in the same mu
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > IMHO it would be better to start over legacy free for .NET and really target
> > the .NET/JVM/LLVM platform 100%.
> >
> > I think that single source combinations are already all gone by the time we
> > would enter production with a .NET port. A
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>
> > At my company, we still have a huge number of clients running Windows
> > 95, who protest loudly when we even _suggest_ upgrading.
> >
> > Which is not to say that we should not look
Marco van de Voort wrote:
> IMHO it would be better to start over legacy free for .NET and really target
> the .NET/JVM/LLVM platform 100%.
Refer them to Chrome ? ;-)
Micha
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepa
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> At my company, we still have a huge number of clients running Windows
> 95, who protest loudly when we even _suggest_ upgrading.
>
> Which is not to say that we should not look at a .NET port of FPC, but
> this is not very high on the pr
On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
>
> About .NET and LLVM, they don´t seam to add anything Free Pascal
> already cannot do.
>
> We should also think it may be inevitable to write a .NET port in the
> very long future (10 years?), if microsoft decides to obsolete windows
>
On 10/3/06, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
About .NET and LLVM, they don´t seam to add anything Free Pascal
already cannot do.
Donno about .NET but LLVM advertises itself as a target for compiler
development. It does a wide range of optimizations and if memory
serves ri
On 9/29/06, Adrian Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way : why dotnet and not java ?
Acctually I was considering (not so near in the future), to research
about writing a java byte code target for Free Pascal.
Of course the faq says you guys aren´t much pro it, but there do is a
real
On 29 Sep 2006, at 12:15, Krishna wrote:
Why not target LLVM instead?
I've also thought about that, but haven't looked yet at the technical
specifications of LLVM to see how easy/difficult it would be.
Jonas
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pasc
On 9/29/06, Graeme Geldenhuys <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What is LLVM?
Check this out: http://llvm.org
Cheers,
Krishna
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On 29/09/06, Krishna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Why not target LLVM instead?
What is LLVM?
Regards,
- Graeme -
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On 9/29/06, Adrian Maier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
By the way : why dotnet and not java ? At least java has been
around for a longer
time, and there are compatible jdk's for more platforms ... So we
wouldn't have to
deal with differences like those between Mono and the .Net platform.
On 9/29/06, Bisma Jayadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I know writing FPC port for .Net is far from easy. But the difficulty should
be on compiler code side only. On the user/app code, it shouldn't cause
significant changes. Since Delphi and FPC has same language root, object
pascal, I wonder why e
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
> The .NET CLR does not know the 'untyped pointer' type. That means that a
> lot of RTL code must be rewritten; if not most of it. I'm not saying it
> can't be done, but none of the core developers sees this as a need or even
> a challenge.
Moreover, yo
On Fri, 29 Sep 2006, Bisma Jayadi wrote:
> > Current text:
> > There is nothing practical known yet about how portable an average .NET code
> > will be. Little experiments with hello world level code mean nothing, that
> > kind of code works with plain C too.
> >
> > Proposed text:
> > There is
> Why Delphi has no problem supporting .Net without sacrificing backward
> compatibility (too much)?
There is a problem.
> If I'm not mistaken (CMIIW), during Borcon 2005, Borland demoed a Delphi 1
> application (the famous FishFact demo) that can be run on .Net by simply
> recompile it on BDS 2
Current text:
There is nothing practical known yet about how portable an average .NET
code will be. Little experiments with hello world level code mean
nothing, that kind of code works with plain C too.
Proposed text:
There is nothing practical known yet about how portable an average .NET
cod
> I think the supposed advantage of portability should be refuted more clearly.
> I
> think object pascal code compiled with fpc is more portable than the
> Delphi.NET
> code. I propose the following change.
>
> Current text:
> There is nothing practical known yet about how portable an average
I read the .NET FAQ http://www.freepascal.org/faq.html#dotnet.
I think the supposed advantage of portability should be refuted more clearly. I
think object pascal code compiled with fpc is more portable than the Delphi.NET
code. I propose the following change.
Current text:
There is nothing p
37 matches
Mail list logo
