Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-17 Thread Geoff Bagley
Well, just to mention a counter-example: My favourite Ada compiler is written in Ada. Vinzent. I used to use an Algol 60 compiler which had been written in a (gradually growing) sub-set of Algol 60. A new meaning to "boot-strapping" ? Geoff __

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-16 Thread Vinzent Hoefler
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

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-16 Thread L505
> 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

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-16 Thread A.J. Venter
> 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.

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-16 Thread 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, because I've being working with Lazarus, but I never noticed it. It probably doesn't matter fr

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-16 Thread Michael Van Canneyt
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

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-16 Thread Alexandre Leclerc
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

Re: [fpc-pascal] Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 19, Issue 24

2006-03-16 Thread Mattias Gaertner
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