Board index » kylix » Re: Lazarus

Re: Lazarus


2004-01-05 06:22:44 PM
kylix2
Johannes Berg wrote:
Quote
The compiler should be close to D7 I think, while the IDE... well, how do
you measure that?
What about interfaces?
--
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
(www.kylix-patch.de.vu - Kylix 3 patches)
 
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

{MSX} < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
I think lazarus is great! It just need to be a little more easy to
install and compatible (it actually don't work well on my knoppix)
and it would be perfect!
Well, isn't that what people are saying about Kylix?
If only it worked well with all distros and had no installation
and deployment issues...
Rick Carter
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
Chair, Paradox/Delphi SIG, Cincinnati PC Users Group
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

pNichols wrote:
Quote
Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:

>pNichols wrote:
>
>>Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff Undercash wrote:
>>>
>>>>Has anyone used Lazarus at www.lazarus.freepascal.org? It looks
>>>>promising. The coolest thing about Lazarus is its enthusiastic user
>>>>base and frequent
>>>>updates.
>>>
>>>I agree - it looks promising. And I say that even though I have not yet
>>>managed to successfully link and run a simple 'Hello World' project. I
>>>have nonetheless seen enough to think that this is a project worth
>>>keeping an eye on.
>>>
>>>Does anyone know how easy / difficult it would be to include support
>>>for C++?
>>
>>Lazarus site states no future development planned for C/C++. I owuld
>>look at Borland Builder X, which looks extremely promising.
>
>Currently C++ BuilderX does not support RAD using VCL or CLX, and it is
>not clear whether or not future releases will. In the absence of a clear
>commitment from Borland, I am interested in finding a platform to which I
>can migrate my project if need be.
>
No, Builder X will use wxWindows as the default GUI platform. Since this
is pretty much a main stream Open Source way to build XPlatform GUIs, I,
for one, am glad Borland is not going a strict proprietary CLX/VCL route.

I'm sure we can all agree that a non-proprietary approach is a good thing.
The problem is that Borland is not simply avoiding a 'strict proprietary
CLX/VCL route'. It has created uncertainty over whether it is going to
continue to support CLX/VCL at all.
This means that anyone who has an existing application built on VCL / CLX
does not know whether their application has a secure future, or whether
they will eventually be forced to make a large investment to port it to
another platform.
Its the possibility that Lazarus might provide a secure future for my
application if Borland drop VCL / CLX that makes it interesting to me.
--
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
Homepage: graffiti.{*word*269}.net/c.gordon-smith/
Email Address: Please see my Home Page
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Lazarus

Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
Quote
pNichols wrote:

>Chris Gordon-Smith wrote:
>

I'm sure we can all agree that a non-proprietary approach is a good thing.
The problem is that Borland is not simply avoiding a 'strict proprietary
CLX/VCL route'. It has created uncertainty over whether it is going to
continue to support CLX/VCL at all.

Yes and I agree. That is why I would not build my future apps using Kylix,
unless they are non GUI and run only on x86 Linux.
Kylix users have a right to be po'ed. I bought every version, so to some
degree I might be more ansgry. However, 80% of our work is in Java, so I
avoided the problem, for the most part. But I do feel for those developers
(and the BCB ones as well, where I do have more of an investment) who have
committed to CLX. It makes extending your present apps, or the ones in
progress to be facing a real dilemna.
My decision NOT to use Kylix in general was based upon Borland's lack of
updates for it when the new versions of glibs came out. In fact I do not
know of more than one official update that has ever been released for Kylix
(I am not speaking of new purchase either <G>).
Quote
This means that anyone who has an existing application built on VCL / CLX
does not know whether their application has a secure future, or whether
they will eventually be forced to make a large investment to port it to
another platform.

Its the possibility that Lazarus might provide a secure future for my
application if Borland drop VCL / CLX that makes it interesting to me.

I can understand that. I looked at Lazarus some time back, and saw it moving
too slowly to make a commitment for anything but the simplist of apps.
Since Linux is one of our main deployment platforms, I cannot wait till
sometime in the future, to do business <G>. The problem I see for Lazarus,
is even greater than the one I saw for Kylix. How much support can we
expect for it, and when will that support, updates, etc. be coming? That is
not something I would want to bet my future development upon.
Basically, we have three main choices for xplatform development that is well
supported and has had a positive past and will probably have a good future
as well. That is C/C++ combined with widgetsets like GTK+, QT, wxWindows,
Visual TCL, or Java. Since Java has the widest industry support and is
certified as an XPlatform development success story, that is what we choose
and use.
Some complain about Java GUI speed, and on older computers (less than PIII
with limited RAM), I would agree. But with modern processors (1gz. and up)
and the newer JDK's, Swing isn't bad.
If you need more speed, the SWT framework from the Eclipse project actually
uses Motif or GTK+ on Unix, and the Windows API widgetsets for Windows,
making speed pretty close to native. You do not have to recode anything
either, just make sure to package the SWT.jars with your app.
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Quote
Well, isn't that what people are saying about Kylix?
If only it worked well with all distros and had no installation
and deployment issues...
Yes, but the (big) difference is that Lazarus is open-source and can be
compiled to run on any environment. When Lazarus gets out of beta I'm sure
there will be precompiled versions available for many different distros.
With Kylix we're pretty much stuck with what Borland releases and it's hard
for us to get optimized Kylix binaries for every distribution/architecture.
The deployment issue with Kylix was mainly due to Borland using it's own Qt
binaries and as far as I know FPC doesn't use a customized version of GTK.
Regards,
Mattias
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Nospam Please wrote:
Quote
The deployment issue with Kylix was mainly due to Borland using it's own
Qt binaries
It is more the problem that Kylix (Delphi) cannot link against C++ shared
objects and Kylix (BCB) cannot link against gcc generated C++ shared
objects. So you need a C wrapper shared object. And this must be at a
place where the Linux loader can find it.
--
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
(www.kylix-patch.de.vu - Kylix 3 patches)
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Soon my bosses will upgrade my PC to P4 1.8GHz and 512Mb RAM. I will tell
you how that Java apps is working. Currently on C700, 384Mb it is complete
{*word*99}. Especially CBX. Personally i'm don't expect good performance from it.
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Andreas Hausladen wrote:
Quote
>The compiler should be close to D7 I think, while the IDE... well, how do
>you measure that?

What about interfaces?
fpc 1.9 (beta) supports interfaces. It doesn't support the "implements"
keyword, though (OTOH, from what I've heard, Delphi for .NET in its
current release doesn't support "implements" either).
Apart from that, in Delphi mode, the compiler is almost 100% Delphi 7
compatible on the source code level.
But as we all know, the compiler is only part of the story.
Gretings, Robert
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Ender wrote:
Quote
Soon my bosses will upgrade my PC to P4 1.8GHz and 512Mb RAM. I will tell
you how that Java apps is working. Currently on C700, 384Mb it is complete
{*word*99}. Especially CBX. Personally i'm don't expect good performance from
it.
On my 1.6 GHz P4 with 256 Mb RAM the performance of C++ BuilderX seems OK.
It doen't do anything that is of any use to me, but I have no complaint
about the speed at which it does it.
--
Chris Gordon-Smith
London
Homepage: graffiti.{*word*269}.net/c.gordon-smith/
Email Address: Please see my Home Page
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Quote
Apart from that, in Delphi mode, the compiler is almost 100% Delphi 7
compatible on the source code level.
Can you use Delphi components in Lazarus? For example, if I need Indy, can I
use those components?
-ioan
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Ender wrote:
Quote
p>Some complain about Java GUI speed, and on older computers (less than
p>PIII with limited RAM), I would agree. But with modern processors
p>(1gz. and up)
p>and the newer JDK's, Swing isn't bad.

Soon my bosses will upgrade my PC to P4 1.8GHz and 512Mb RAM. I will tell
you how that Java apps is working. Currently on C700, 384Mb it is complete
{*word*99}. Especially CBX. Personally i'm don't expect good performance from
it.
\
First, CBuilder X states 512 meg of Ram, secondly on an older Celeron with
no on chip cache, I would not be surprised that an IDE like JBuilder or
Builder X, would not run too spiffy. Most Java aps, however, are not going
to have internal de{*word*81}s, code completion, and the like.
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

p>First, CBuilder X states 512 meg of Ram,
And as i recently stated use only 68..70Mb of RAM when running. Look on the
results of "top" command.
p>secondly on an older Celeron with no on chip cache, I would not be
p>surprised that an IDE like JBuilder or
My C700 has 128 or 256Mb of L2 cache (can't look exactly how much).
p>Builder X, would not run too spiffy. Most Java aps, however, are not
p>going to have internal de{*word*81}s, code completion, and the like.
Of course, but they had another things.
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Ioan Ghip wrote:
Quote
Can you use Delphi components in Lazarus? For example, if I need Indy, can I
use those components?
I haven't examined Lazarus closer (and I'm no way a fpc expert); but
since Indy provides non-visual components only, I'd assume that fpc's
runtime library should suffice (Lazarus not needed). It provides a
"Classes" unit which is meant to be Delphi-compatible (incomplete; e.g.
TStreamAdapter is yet to be implemented).
You would have to try.
Greetings, Robert
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Ioan Ghip wrote:
Quote
>Apart from that, in Delphi mode, the compiler is almost 100% Delphi 7
>compatible on the source code level.

Can you use Delphi components in Lazarus? For example, if I need Indy, can
I use those components?
You can also take a look at:
<www.ararat.cz/synapse/>
--
Best regards
Stig Johansen
 

Re:Re: Lazarus

Not having a copy of kylix 3, I tryed d/l lazuarus. After installing it,
I tryed to create a test project. When I tryed to create a 2nd form and
tryed to open it:
newform.showmodal;
It gave me the following compile error:
mainunit.pas(42,14) Error: identifier idents no member "ShowModal"
I tryed it with all lowercase, mixed case and uppercase, all giving the
same error. I saw some reference to using showmodal in there
documantation, but no specifics.
I have this running on a fedora 1 system.