On 17 February 2013 20:30, ik wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Frank Church wrote:
>> On 17 February 2013 17:10, ik wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Am 17.02.2013 15:36, schrieb ik:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 <tel:2013> at 1:58 PM, Florian Klämpfl
>>>> > Why is it that FPC/K now exists for 20 years as an open source project,
>>>> > and you
>>>> > can't earn money for developing it,
>>>>
>>>> Actually, I'am not interested in earning money with it.
>>>>
>>>> > while Linus that have an OS that
>>>> > exists for 21
>>>> > years can ?
>>>> >
>>>> > This type of things are important more then you think.
>>>>
>>>> For what? For the fun? FPC is probably by far the most successful non
>>>> company supported oss compiler so I'am sure I know what is important.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes to solve everything but keep it for yourself :P
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > But not only this, take a look at the freepascal.org
>>>> > <
http://freepascal.org> web site: animated gif (from the 90's),
>>>>
>>>> Ever , kernel.org, llvm.org etc.?
>>>
>>>
>>> Nice, Pascal is at the same level of usage and exposure as gcc, Linux
>>> kernel and llvm,
>>> nothing more to do, 0xPascal maybe, just to show that 201x can have
>>> something new ?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > the whole way of thinking there is not designer oriented - It does not
>>>> > invite new people
>>>> > to the project,
>>>> > does not provide a proper place to be etc...
>>>>
>>>> Why should I care? They might use the tools they like, I use the tools I
>>>> like.
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > It's not easy to find documentation for things, some are at the wiki,
>>>>
>>>> A compiler is not a toy, and I know that serious programmers find the
>>>> needed docs.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sure that compile is a toy, it can't do much, just parse something and
>>> move it to be something else :P
>>>
>>> And documentation should be at one place, including new features,
>>> workarounds etc... for old versions.
>>> Look at:
>>>
>>>
http://ruby-doc.org/
>>>
http://www.python.org/doc/
>>>
http://perldoc.perl.org/
>>>
http://golang.org/doc/
>>>
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/
>>>
http://docs.embarcadero.com/products/rad_studio/
>>>
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/JavaScript
>>>
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/
>>>
https://developers.google.com/
>>>
>>> Should I continue, or do you get my point ?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > some at the /doc-html/ path
>>>> > and many does not exists.
>>>> >
>>>> > So you are working on all this cool features and is the fastest compiler
>>>> > in the world, and you can
>>>> > do everything you wanted with pascal and many things you don't (and it's
>>>> > not a c++ like
>>>> > technology garbage can). But no new blood see it, use it or can be
>>>> > attracted to it, so what's
>>>> > the point ?
>>>>
>>>> FPC is still growing so what is your point?
>>>
>>> If a tree fall in the forest and no one hear about it, did it made a sound ?
>>>
>>> My point is that features are good, but when on one knows about it, then
>>> what's the point of it all ?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> fpc-pascal maillist -
>>>>
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fpc-pascal maillist -
>>>
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>>
>> To Id in particular and others like minds I think there is something
>> which isn't quite understood here. The compiler and the language ie
>> FPC is quite a separate thing from the development tools and
>
> FPC implement things. It does not implement all of Pascal ISO, and it
> add a lot of things on it's own
>
>
>> libraries, toolchains and the areas where it is applied. For instance
>> if you read fpc-devel you will see that it is targetted at a wide
>> range of CPUs and embedded devices, and that is not an area where the
>> latest language developments are of much interest. Rightly or wrongly
>> the compiler developers have become the focus where all matters FPC
>> related are centred and this shouldn't be the case.
>>
>> I had my issues with this a long time ago and I even blogged about it
>> -
https://devblog.brahmancreations.com/content/observations-on-freepascal-and-lazarus-development,
>> and it also resulted in
>>
https://devblog.brahmancreations.com/content/build-scripts-for-installing-freepascal-and-lazarus-from-source
>> (which has resulted in almost 60.000 hits to date, LOL) but I have
>> come to understand why things are the way they are.
>>
>> Some of your comparisons with other language projects are not quite
>> fair. You mentioned Ruby, Python, Java but this comparison is not
>> appropriate. Leaving aside the quality of documentation, something
>> must be noted here. The languages you mentioned are more or less owned
>> by a few individuals/corporations/committees who determine EXACTLY how
>> the language is defined, the primary libraries and how they are
>> implemented. There is only one Matz, one Guido, and one Oracle.
>
> Yet, Google was able to create Dalvik
> (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dalvik_%28software%29)
> by using Sun/Oracle API, there are numerous implementation of
> Ruby (
http://jruby.org/,
http://rubini.us/ for example) and Python
> (
http://www.jython.org/,
http://pypy.org/), a lot more people to
> contribute to it,
> because it can offer things.
>
>
>> FreePascal aims to support and retain compatibility with many
>> different dialects which sprung up over the years and that isn't easy.
>
> FPC is mostly attempting to be compatible with Delphi this days afaik.
>
>> Graeme's complaints about what he considers an unwarranted desire to
>> maintain compatibility with Delphi are legion, yet (ex) Delphi
>> developers are the ones who can do the most to help FreePascal evolve
>> if they don't buy into promises by Embarcadero to have Delphi working
>> fine and dandy on Linux, which really means the Mac, as there is one
>> too many variants of Linux consumer-wise.
>>
>> The main hindrance in the FPC world over the years, I believe, has
>> been the reluctance to allow a modicum of documentation comments in
>> the source code that would allow documentation to be built directly
>> from the IDE with some CodeTools, ie in Lazarus. I think that is where
>> it has been hurt most because it is not a corporate funded language
>> and hobbyists have enough problems going through an edit-compile-run
>> cycle to finish their projects, let alone document them in a separate
>> files using plain text editors. There is more flexibility now and I
>> think the upcoming Lazarus versions will make it easier.
>
> I don't need an IDE to develop Pascal, unlike Java for example, I can use VIM
> (and actually sometimes do), to develop. A language that must be with IDE
> sucks big time.
> I love Lazarus, but there are other IDE's out there as well, including
> text editors
> such as sublime and notepad+ etc...
>
> I need documentation and understanding of what is implemented, why,
> differences between versions, what to expect from one version to
> another with my code etc...
>
> It's not about the IDE/Editor, it's about the project, and FPC
> developers know better what is
> in plan, what is the direction, why things works as they do etc...
>
> I'm an expert in the IT industry. I have a lot of knowledge in
> information security, VoIP, databases
> working with system tools (firewalls etc) and more. Building
> applications that can use such technologies,
> i do not have knowledge in compilers. I have written several parsers
> in my life, but it's not the same.
>
> Don't expect me to understand something that is not part of what I do
> because then I need to enter to
> an new set of field and learn it.
>
>>
>> One more thing lest I forget. The official FPC documentation is very
>> good, especially for documents created by volunteers and hobbyists.
>> That it is not accompanied by examples and demos is quite another
>> matter. The solution to that is would be some kind of Pascal
>> interpreter with a REPL that would enable FreePascal developers to
>> have their Web 2.0 cake and eat it, so they could develop their IDEs
>> and some web-based documentation CMSs speedily, but most of the
>> efforts in that area, like ElevateSoft Web Buillder, Raudus,
>> SmartMobileStudio etc are closed source.
>>
>> What the Open Source Pascal world needs most now is a good interpreter
>> to start developing their IDE and documentation in, which is compiled
>> to machine code after, not because Lazarus is not good enough, but
>> turnaround times need to be fast for a hobbyist and volunteer driven
>> project.
>
> I'm working on making msgpack in native Pascal. I needed to understand better
> how strings works in FPC (that are different then Delphi btw), and I
> could not find
> good documentation on each individual string type, I could not find a
> lot of needed
> information about the path the string is going to have in FPC. Did you
> know that 2.7.1
> have new way of working with locales of strings ?
>
> When I create a library, I need to know such things to prepare my
> code, or understand
> that it is something I will need to do, only recently there where few
> wiki entries about it.
>
> With generics, can you give me good documentation of FPC about it ?
> The wiki has old information, some of it not relevant anymore.
>
> There are bugs in the way it is implemented with 2.6.0, and fixes for
> it on 2.7.1, but the workarounds
> of the bugs are not documented, I found them in the bug tracker by accident.
> I could not find any reference for such issues on the wiki, or the
> official documentation.
>
> So no, the documentation is enough, you need more information, you
> need different way of creating it.
> For example the Ruby and Python way of documentation works a bit
> different then the state of mind of FPC's.
> They also explain the thinking behind it.
>
>
> But you missed understand my whole claim here.
> Pascal is an underdog, that many people are unwilling to hear about.
> I'm doing a lot of evangelism in that area. I moved from talks about
> "stop talking about Pascal, it is useless" to
> talks such as "but FPC has static linking, and gcc has dynamic
> linking, and dynamic linking is the
> answer to life universe and everything".
> That's a whole new world you see ? Instead of not caring, now it's "we
> checked it a bit, but will not use", and that's
> after almost 10 years of my own work on this.
>
> Two months ago, I had a meeting at one of the biggest portals in my
> country for something they want me to build them.
> The whole room of the place I had the meeting, either been in one of
> the lecture I gave, or seen something in open source
> that I've done.
> Everyone knew who I was when I entered the room. It's not simple or
> easy to do such things, and when you do the right noise,
> people at the end will go with what you say, just to prove you wrong,
> and then when they can't they know something, and even
> might start using it themselves.
>
> That's what I do for FPC and Lazarus for the past 10 years +-, besides
> some contributions.
>
>>
>> --
>> Frank Church
>
> Ido
>
>>
>> =======================
>>
http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> fpc-pascal maillist -
>>
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist -
>
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Google and Sun are multibillion dollar corporations. Their owners