Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> 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.
Not to forget (translated german idiom): only if you swim
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
> > 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
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
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$'s copy of Java, that doesn't mean that
This will change with version 3 of .net, I looked at an article in the
ger
On Thursday 16 March 2006 08:24, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> While I'm not a .NET lover (I wrote the FPC section on .NET), but
> while we all know that .NET is at best M$'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
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
> 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
Bisma Jayadi wrote:
>> Delphi 2006 for Win32 also incorperates a lot of the innovations nade in
>> Delphi.Net.
>
> .Net? Though I had suggested FPC to also implement some new Delphi
> language features which I think very usefull, but I agree with FPC core
> team that we don't need to support .Net
Delphi 2006 for Win32 also incorperates a lot of the innovations nade in
Delphi.Net.
.Net? Though I had suggested FPC to also implement some new Delphi language
features which I think very usefull, but I agree with FPC core team that we
don't need to support .Net yet.
IMO, .Net is just a bus
With 22.000 dolares we could have, in less then a year:
* PalmOS support for Free Pascal and Lazarus
* A great Carbon widgetset
* Perhaps even full COM and OLE support
--
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepas
They haven't raised any money yet. The money will only be collected if
Borland were to accept an offer from these folks. The amount so far is
more akin to pledges.
Mark
L505 wrote:
Who gets the $22,000 they have raised so far, if their plan doesn't work out?
___
Who gets the $22,000 they have raised so far, if their plan doesn't work out?
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
> not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alone, and the VCL (full VCL), and
> defacto support for all (not just a subset) of Delphi features.
The idea is that it´s much, much cheapier to invest on Lazarus and
Free Pascal an
> > http://delphi.org/
> >
> > Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> > Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
>
> You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
> not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alon
What he meant is that supporting fpc/lazarus development
is a quite more tangible task than trying to buy and support delphi.
On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:54:38 -0300, memsom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
http://delphi.org/
Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
Why don't the
memsom wrote:
>> http://delphi.org/
>>
>> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
>> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
>
> You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
> not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net com
> http://delphi.org/
>
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
You're kidding me right? Maybe if you made that assertion about Kylix, but
not Delphi!! The Delphi.Net compiler alone, and the VCL
> http://delphi.org/
>
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
And totally unrealistic.
- price is way to low (50 times that is more reasonable I think)
- not just the source is not for sale,
> http://delphi.org/
Sorry... stupid mistypo. :P It should be:
http://opendelphi.org/
:D
-Bee-
has Bee.ography at
http://beeography.wordpress.com
Bisma Jayadi wrote:
Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead o
I fully agree!!!
Regards,
- Graeme -
On 3/15/06, Bisma Jayadi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://delphi.org/
>
> Very nice attempts, but -IMO- they're just wasting their time. :p
> Why don't they switch to and support FPC/Lazarus instead of doing that? :p
>
> -Bee-
>
> has Bee.ography at
> h
27 matches
Mail list logo
