Board index » kylix » Re: Borland Classic Products

Re: Borland Classic Products


2005-09-01 06:57:33 AM
kylix1
Hi Marco,
Quote
>>They had their change to get me on board. Now I'm more interested in
>>CrossFPC than Lazarus.

>How come they were not interested in your help?

IIRC Andreas required compability with Delphi compiler.
Sorry, but what is the issue? FP 2.0 is becoming now closer to the Delphi
compiler. Isn't it a way to bridge the two worlds ? May be, it is more
possible today than it was then.
Wouldn't it be great to have another very dedicated developer to Object
Pascal for FP<->Delphi cross-platform ?
Regards,
Oliver
 
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Marco van de Voort wrote:
Quote

On 2005-08-31, Jeff Overcash (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>
>
>Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>
>>On 2005-08-30, Jeff Overcash (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
>>>Lazerus 4 years ago did not have refactoring either. Don't compare features of
>>>the current Lazerus vs a Delphi from 2 versions ago. Of course Lazerus still
>>>has not reached even D4 compiler compatibility so I guess there is a reason you
>>>compare it to older Delphi technologies.
>>
>>You mean Lazarus doesn't include all features the Delphi compiler had in
>>D4? Correct.
>
>Correct, more importantly they promised such compatibility 6 years ago and still
>haven't achieved that.

Do you have the link to that hard "promise"? This because it is a bit odd of
course that an OSS team would promise something, so it definitely would be
nice to see the promise black on white. Since they can't be sure even how
many hours there will be spent on it next week.

It was on their web site in '99. They have since removed it. Just because they
have come off the promise does not mean they didn't make it back then.
Quote
Of course one can always make an educated guess, and that is probably what
you are refering too, but in that period, everybody somewhat overestimated
the activity and momentum of communities.
No assumption. It was clear on their web site and in their roadmap. It has
been removed in the last few years, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there back
in '99. They did not meet their promise nor did they follow through with the
roadmap they presented at the time.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) On waves of silver I dreamed of gold
(Please do not email 'Till I lost the peace that dreaming gives
me directly unless I dreamed of the moment of my own death
asked. Thank You) That no one ever dreams and lives (Marillion)
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote

Florian Klaempfl wrote:

>Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
>
>>No, I mean that the Lazerus project claimed they wanted D4 compatibility at the
>>end of '99. 6 years later they still have not even achieved this compatibility.
>>
>
>Depends how you define compatibility.


If something is compatible then if it compiles in one then it will compile in
the one claiming compatibility with the first.

Then you've understood something wrong in this case :) Everybody with only a
little cross platform development experience knows that this isn't possible and
I really doubt that one of the lazarus people would ever say this.
Anyways, it wouldn't even matter, it's an open source project where everybody
works in it's leisure so roadmaps are always hard to fulfill and even the big
companies like Intel have to change their roadmaps sometimes ...
 

{smallsort}

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

On 2005-08-31, Jeff Overcash (TeamB) < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
>nice to see the promise black on white. Since they can't be sure even how
>many hours there will be spent on it next week.
>

It was on their web site in '99. They have since removed it. Just because they
have come off the promise does not mean they didn't make it back then.
web.archive.org/web/20000304020700/http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/
2000 is as early as it goes, but a news items of 1999 is present, so the
design is older.
I remember Lazarus conception, and can't remember such promise (since it
would be strange since FPC would not be ready)
I don't accuse you of lying, such forecasts were indeed made, though I think
even then the timescale was a bit longer, and a larger community
participation was expected. In 1999, the existance (and thus possible
competition) of Kylix wasn't even known (or maybe the first rumours trickled
through in late 1999 or early 2000), which was bound to steal users away.
But even then, I don't remember a solid promise. Maybe others have better
recollection?
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

On 2005-08-31, Oliver Feins <oliverfeins@rmeloo>wrote:
Quote
Hi Marco,

>>>They had their change to get me on board. Now I'm more interested in
>>>CrossFPC than Lazarus.
>
>>How come they were not interested in your help?
>
>IIRC Andreas required compability with Delphi compiler.

Sorry, but what is the issue? FP 2.0 is becoming now closer to the Delphi
compiler. Isn't it a way to bridge the two worlds ? May be, it is more
possible today than it was then.
IIRC the reasons centered around:
- Lazarus not being written in Delphi mode, but S2 mode.
- Delphi versioning. There is no definite delphi compiler or rtl, there
are several delphi's and kylixes. Keep in mind that at the time Lazarus was
migrating from FPC V1 to V2, and people really hated that, and wanted to
avoid more
- One would limit themselves to the FPC subset.
- all compilers contain bugs. Delphi is no exceptions. More compilers means
more workarounds.
- The use wasn't clear. Kylix had CLX, Delphi had VCL, and most devels would
prefer those anyway for the targets the K/D compilers can compile
for.
Quote
Wouldn't it be great to have another very dedicated developers to Object
Pascal developer on board for FP<->Delphi?
Sure. It would even be greater to have them on board without making elaborate
changes.
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

On 2005-09-01, Marco van de Voort < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
- Lazarus not being written in Delphi mode, but S2 mode.
- Delphi versioning. There is no definite delphi compiler or rtl, there
are several delphi's and kylixes. Keep in mind that at the time Lazarus was
migrating from FPC V1 to V2, and people really hated that, and wanted to
avoid more
.. versioning....
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

On 2005-08-30, Thomas Miller < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:
Quote
Lazarus is already a good product. The problem is the LCL. It is
years behind the VCL. Of course if 40 good Delphi/Kylix developers
worked on the UOPL, that could change in less then 18 months.
If 40 good devels worked on LCL, it would too. And they wouldn't have to
start from zero :-)
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Marco van de Voort wrote:
Quote
On 2005-08-31, Oliver Feins <oliverfeins@rmeloo>wrote:

>Hi Marco,
>
>
>>>>They had their change to get me on board. Now I'm more interested in
>>>>CrossFPC than Lazarus.
>>
>>>How come they were not interested in your help?
>>
>>IIRC Andreas required compability with Delphi compiler.
>
>Sorry, but what is the issue? FP 2.0 is becoming now closer to the Delphi
>compiler. Isn't it a way to bridge the two worlds ? May be, it is more
>possible today than it was then.


IIRC the reasons centered around:

- Lazarus not being written in Delphi mode, but S2 mode.
- Delphi versioning. There is no definite delphi compiler or rtl, there
are several delphi's and kylixes. Keep in mind that at the time Lazarus was
migrating from FPC V1 to V2, and people really hated that, and wanted to
avoid more
- One would limit themselves to the FPC subset.
- all compilers contain bugs. Delphi is no exceptions. More compilers means
more workarounds.
- The use wasn't clear. Kylix had CLX, Delphi had VCL, and most devels would
prefer those anyway for the targets the K/D compilers can compile
for.
Not to forget that somebody would have to maintain it which shouldn't be
underestimated, iirc the lazarus source tree is 1.5M lines of code and it
changes rapidly so keeping it working with e.g. Kylix and always the two latest
delphi versions is a time consuming task.
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Thomas Miller wrote:
Quote
Lazarus is already a good product. The problem is the LCL. It is
years behind the VCL. Of course if 40 good Delphi/Kylix developers
worked on the UOPL, that could change in less then 18 months.
40 developers? With 40 good OSS developers lazarus would be within a few months
ported to all important guis and all open issues would be fixed.
Quote

Michael Schnell wrote:

>Bira wrote:
>
>>Lazarus is a great project
>>Congratulations to the developpers.
>>But Lazarus it's still very ingenous, it doesn't seems to me that,
>>one day, it could be a professional-like software.
>>
>
>Lazarus is based on Free Pascal. Free Pascal already looks very
>professional. So maybe Lazarus will come up to speed so0me day, too.
>
>-Michael


 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Florian Klaempfl wrote:
Quote

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:

>
>Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>
>>Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
>>
>>>No, I mean that the Lazerus project claimed they wanted D4 compatibility at the
>>>end of '99. 6 years later they still have not even achieved this compatibility.
>>>
>>
>>Depends how you define compatibility.
>
>
>If something is compatible then if it compiles in one then it will compile in
>the one claiming compatibility with the first.
>

Then you've understood something wrong in this case :)
No in this case you are confusing libraries with compilers.
Quote
Everybody with only a
little cross platform development experience knows that this isn't possible and
I really doubt that one of the lazarus people would ever say this.
We are not talking libraries, we are talking compilers. Compilers definitely
can be compatible. If two different C++ compilers both correctly implement the
C++ spec then they are compatible. One may have a performance benefit over the
other, but both compilers would accept the same syntactical input and correctly
produce output. That is exactly what compiler level compatibility means.
Lazarus claimed that compatibility was a feature they were going to implement.
That means that syntax that will compile in the D4 compiler would compile for
Lazarus. Today this is still not a true statement (of course they no longer
make that statement, but it doesn't change the fact that in the past they did
make this promise to the community).
Quote

Anyways, it wouldn't even matter, it's an open source project where everybody
works in it's leisure so roadmaps are always hard to fulfill and even the big
companies like Intel have to change their roadmaps sometimes ...
Great reason to not risk your business on it then since businesses can't work
that way.
--
Jeff Overcash (TeamB) On waves of silver I dreamed of gold
(Please do not email 'Till I lost the peace that dreaming gives
me directly unless I dreamed of the moment of my own death
asked. Thank You) That no one ever dreams and lives (Marillion)
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
Quote

Florian Klaempfl wrote:

>Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
>
>
>>Florian Klaempfl wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Jeff Overcash (TeamB) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>No, I mean that the Lazerus project claimed they wanted D4 compatibility at the
>>>>end of '99. 6 years later they still have not even achieved this compatibility.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Depends how you define compatibility.
>>
>>
>>If something is compatible then if it compiles in one then it will compile in
>>the one claiming compatibility with the first.
>>
>
>Then you've understood something wrong in this case :)


No in this case you are confusing libraries with compilers.
You too, lazarus isn't a compiler :) Lazarus _never_ claimed to make a compiler
but decided to use FPC from the first hour.
Quote


>Everybody with only a
>little cross platform development experience knows that this isn't possible and
>I really doubt that one of the lazarus people would ever say this.


We are not talking libraries, we are talking compilers.
You know what lazarus is?
Quote
Compilers definitely
can be compatible. If two different C++ compilers both correctly implement the
C++ spec then they are compatible. One may have a performance benefit over the
other, but both compilers would accept the same syntactical input and correctly
produce output. That is exactly what compiler level compatibility means.
Lazarus claimed that compatibility was a feature they were going to implement.
That means that syntax that will compile in the D4 compiler would compile for
Lazarus. Today this is still not a true statement
I wonder how I compiled with FPC 100.000s of lines of code like Decal, DORB,
d2fordelphi written for delphi 7 and 2005 (win32) without any change except
things like adapting defines and no: we won't introduce delphi defines like ver150.
FYI: there are people using a (unchanged or with Andreas' patches) CLX compiled
with FPC because Borland didn't update Kylix for years.
Quote
(of course they no longer
make that statement, but it doesn't change the fact that in the past they did
make this promise to the community).
They never can and I doubt they ever did because they depend on us (the FPC
developers) regarding compiler compatibility.
Quote


>Anyways, it wouldn't even matter, it's an open source project where everybody
>works in it's leisure so roadmaps are always hard to fulfill and even the big
>companies like Intel have to change their roadmaps sometimes ...


Great reason to not risk your business on it then since businesses can't work
that way.

Well, what about the people which business depends on Kylix? Making no roadmap
is even worse.
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Marco van de Voort wrote:
Quote
On 2005-08-30, Thomas Miller < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote:

>Lazarus is already a good product. The problem is the LCL. It is
>years behind the VCL. Of course if 40 good Delphi/Kylix developers
>worked on the UOPL, that could change in less then 18 months.


If 40 good devels worked on LCL, it would too. And they wouldn't have to
start from zero :-)
But would it work with Delphi too? If they would change there mind
about supporting Delphi with the LCL, I would jump right in. Maybe you
can work on this.
I am looking for a universal library one that works with both Delphi and
FPC/Lazarus.
--
Thomas Miller
Wash DC Delphi SIG Chairperson
Delphi Client/Server Certified Developer
BSS Accounting & Distribution Software
BSS Enterprise Accounting FrameWork
www.bss-software.com
www.cpcug.org/user/delphi/index.html
https://sourceforge.net/projects/uopl/
sourceforge.net/projects/dbexpressplus
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

I feel the same way with Andreas, there is no reason not to have
IFDEF builds in the LCL so it can work with Delphi too. If they
want the "free" help then they are the ones that need to conform,
not Andreas!
I wish he would help me with the UOPL!
Oliver Feins wrote:
Quote
Hi Marco,


>>>They had their change to get me on board. Now I'm more interested in
>>>CrossFPC than Lazarus.
>
>>How come they were not interested in your help?
>
>IIRC Andreas required compability with Delphi compiler.


Sorry, but what is the issue? FP 2.0 is becoming now closer to the Delphi
compiler. Isn't it a way to bridge the two worlds ? May be, it is more
possible today than it was then.

Wouldn't it be great to have another very dedicated developer to Object
Pascal for FP<->Delphi cross-platform ?

Regards,

Oliver
--
Thomas Miller
Wash DC Delphi SIG Chairperson
Delphi Client/Server Certified Developer
BSS Accounting & Distribution Software
BSS Enterprise Accounting FrameWork
www.bss-software.com
www.cpcug.org/user/delphi/index.html
https://sourceforge.net/projects/uopl/
sourceforge.net/projects/dbexpressplus
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

Thomas Miller wrote:
Quote
I feel the same way with Andreas, there is no reason not to have
IFDEF builds in the LCL so it can work with Delphi too. If they
want the "free" help then they are the ones that need to conform,
not Andreas!
I wish he would help me with the UOPL!
At that time I had lots of spare time what isn't the case anymore. And I
have too many other projects running, so jumping to another one is
relativly uncertain. But nothing speaks against bug reports or even small
bugfixes. But for that there must exist a working verion of UOPL and I
must have some spare time.
--
Regards,
Andreas Hausladen
(www.kylix-patch.de.vu - unofficial Kylix 3 patches)
(andy.jgknet.de/blog)
 

Re:Re: Borland Classic Products

"Jeff Overcash (TeamB)" < XXXX@XXXXX.COM >wrote in message
Quote
>Anyways, it wouldn't even matter, it's an open source project where
>everybody
>works in it's leisure so roadmaps are always hard to fulfill and even the
>big
>companies like Intel have to change their roadmaps sometimes ...

Great reason to not risk your business on it then since businesses can't
work
that way.
Business can't work what way? You wouldn't risk your business on what...an
open source project, or a big company? Both have shifting roadmaps.