Sign in Join

Live chat for Free Pascal, Lazarus, Delphi and every Pascal programmer.

Mailing lists / fpc-pascal / 2006-07

Pascal Compiler - Missing Messages etc.

17 messages · 11 people · –

Reply by email Subscribe to this list Your subscription

Read-only archive. Use j and k to move between messages.

Jason P Sage

I'm just writing to say for the new people that if the Free Pascal IDE is not working for you, the command line fpc command has all you need right out the box! If it doesn't seem to do something you want - the programmer's manual (PDF I used anyway) has a ton of command line options - that might be worth putting in a script or batch file (windows/dos flavor script). There are a ton of compiler directives you can put in your program's source code (my favorite option).

This is how I use the Free Pascal compiler.

For editing source code, on Linux I like KWrite (syntax aware color coding and I like it) .. In windows I use this free programmable editor called TeraText Editor - some guy in Russia made - and its excellent. (Column editing that actually works right!)

Another thing I do to make life easier is I work out of one directory, and I try to be smart about file naming for organization versus relying on some IDE to "group" my files into projects.

Then I can work on my PROGRAMS and my UNITS from one location, linking is a breeze, and its easy to snap shot my whole directory for a SOURCE CODE version. My idea on source control in my own computer is making a directory named with a year, month, day, 24hr time (fpc200607200739) and then zipping it up.

I know most of you know this stuff and it's a no brainer - but - I just wanted to say this because I see people having problems sometimes getting started and sometimes its easier to go around the ditch than to build a bridge!

Free Pascal = Awesome

Jason P Sage

Reply by email

Rainer Stratmann
to Jason P Sage
Jason P Sage wrote
I know most of you know this stuff and it's a no brainer - but - I just wanted to say this because I see people having problems sometimes getting started and sometimes its easier to go around the ditch than to build a bridge!

It is a reason, why fp don't come closer to the "critical mass".

In my view these "simple things" must have highest priority.

In the Linux installation routine there is an install-question something like "do you want to install /usr/ or /usr/local/"

A beginner can not know what this is good for. Also there is no information if the install routine on Linux must have root rights...

So if a beginner does not get work these "simple things" he give up very fast.

3 Years ago I tried to install fp, but I did not get it to work, now it gets closer to work.

Reply by email

Florian Klaempfl
to Rainer Stratmann
Rainer Stratmann wrote 7 lines
Am Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2006 13:44 schrieb Jason P Sage: > I know most of you know this stuff and it's a no brainer - but - I just > wanted to say this because I see people having problems sometimes getting > started and sometimes its easier to go around the ditch than to build a > bridge! It is a reason, why fp don't come closer to the "critical mass".

Which critical mass?

Show quoted text 5 lines
In my view these "simple things" must have highest priority. In the Linux installation routine there is an install-question something like "do you want to install /usr/ or /usr/local/"

The default is fine?

A beginner can not know what this is good for. Also there is no information if the install routine on Linux must have root rights...

Well, because it depends on were you install? People not installing as root should know how to change /usr/local to something appropriate.

So if a beginner does not get work these "simple things" he give up very fast.

People don't dig into such stuff will be never good programmers, so I see no real problem if they give up :) Programming is full of such challenges.

Show quoted text 6 lines
3 Years ago I tried to install fp, but I did not get it to work, now it gets closer to work. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Reply by email

Tomas Hajny
to Florian Klaempfl
Florian Klaempfl wrote
Rainer Stratmann wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2006 13:44 schrieb Jason P Sage:

.
.

Show quoted text 18 lines
> In my view these "simple things" must have highest priority. > > In the Linux installation routine there is an install-question > something like "do you want to install /usr/ or /usr/local/" The default is fine? > A beginner can not know what this is good for. Also there is no information if > the install routine on Linux must have root rights... Well, because it depends on were you install? People not installing as root should know how to change /usr/local to something appropriate. > So if a beginner does not get work these "simple things" he give up very fast. People don't dig into such stuff will be never good programmers, so I see no real problem if they give up :) Programming is full of such challenges.

;-) What would you think about distribution of
Win32 version with install.bat script asking you
to choose whether you want to put cygwin1.dll in
system32 or your new bin directory? While Linux
is moving to desktops little bit more, there are
more users who don't know details of their OS.
Such people might be perfectly able to find the
appropriate information, but they might not be
interested to have to do it just to install
something and possibly test what it can do for
them and whether they should continue using it or
throw it away.

My 2 cents, anyway

Tomas

Reply by email

Florian Klaempfl
to Tomas Hajny
Tomas Hajny wrote 23 lines
On 20 Jul 06, at 22:41, Florian Klaempfl wrote: > Rainer Stratmann wrote: >> Am Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2006 13:44 schrieb Jason P Sage: . . >> In my view these "simple things" must have highest priority. >> >> In the Linux installation routine there is an install-question >> something like "do you want to install /usr/ or /usr/local/" > The default is fine? > >> A beginner can not know what this is good for. Also there is no information if >> the install routine on Linux must have root rights... > Well, because it depends on were you install? People not installing as > root should know how to change /usr/local to something appropriate. > >> So if a beginner does not get work these "simple things" he give up very fast. > People don't dig into such stuff will be never good programmers, so I > see no real problem if they give up :) Programming is full of such > challenges. ;-) What would you think about distribution of Win32 version with install.bat script asking you

Since linux people didn't get it to make a common gui, a gui installer isn't doable.

to choose whether you want to put cygwin1.dll in system32 or your new bin directory? While Linux

The windows installer also asks where it should install fpc. The install.sh doesn't ask more. As long as a default option is offered, I see no problem.

Show quoted text 15 lines
is moving to desktops little bit more, there are more users who don't know details of their OS. Such people might be perfectly able to find the appropriate information, but they might not be interested to have to do it just to install something and possibly test what it can do for them and whether they should continue using it or throw it away. My 2 cents, anyway Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Reply by email

Alexandre Leclerc
to Florian Klaempfl: Since linux people didn't get it to make a common gui, a gui installer isn't doable. The…

2006/7/20, Florian Klaempfl :

Show quoted text 27 lines
Tomas Hajny wrote: > On 20 Jul 06, at 22:41, Florian Klaempfl wrote: >> Rainer Stratmann wrote: >>> Am Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2006 13:44 schrieb Jason P Sage: > . > . >>> In my view these "simple things" must have highest priority. >>> >>> In the Linux installation routine there is an install-question >>> something like "do you want to install /usr/ or /usr/local/" >> The default is fine? >> >>> A beginner can not know what this is good for. Also there is no information if >>> the install routine on Linux must have root rights... >> Well, because it depends on were you install? People not installing as >> root should know how to change /usr/local to something appropriate. >> >>> So if a beginner does not get work these "simple things" he give up very fast. >> People don't dig into such stuff will be never good programmers, so I >> see no real problem if they give up :) Programming is full of such >> challenges. > > ;-) What would you think about distribution of > Win32 version with install.bat script asking you Since linux people didn't get it to make a common gui, a gui installer isn't doable.

There is autopackage.org which is a very nice piece of work... but al c/c++ centric.

Alexandre Leclerc

Reply by email

Rainer Stratmann
to Florian Klaempfl: Which critical mass? The default is fine? Well, because it depends on were you install?…
Florian Klaempfl wrote 10 lines
Rainer Stratmann wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 20. Juli 2006 13:44 schrieb Jason P Sage: >> I know most of you know this stuff and it's a no brainer - but - I just >> wanted to say this because I see people having problems sometimes >> getting started and sometimes its easier to go around the ditch than to >> build a bridge! > > It is a reason, why fp don't come closer to the "critical mass". Which critical mass?

Pascal is an ideal, maybe the best programming language. Do you want that more people use it?
I saw pictures about a booth whith the maintainers of fpc at a linux-fair. It would be better if you can say to the ones who are interested that fpc is a language whith a userfriendly environment. I am sure in this case more people would use it.

Show quoted text 6 lines
> In my view these "simple things" must have highest priority. > > In the Linux installation routine there is an install-question > something like "do you want to install /usr/ or /usr/local/" The default is fine?

...maybe for the linux expert...
...many people want to swith from another os, so they are not familiar with linux...
...when I type /usr/local then error messages come, so this irritates then and is a reason why not use it or why to say it is not good enough...

Show quoted text 5 lines
> A beginner can not know what this is good for. Also there is no > information if the install routine on Linux must have root rights... Well, because it depends on were you install? People not installing as root should know how to change /usr/local to something appropriate.

Sorry I don't know this at the moment of installing, like you don't know at this moment how to make userfriendly installers ;)

Show quoted text 6 lines
> So if a beginner does not get work these "simple things" he give up very > fast. People don't dig into such stuff will be never good programmers, so I see no real problem if they give up :) Programming is full of such challenges.

Partly I agree, but, what has a good programmer to do with internals of any os? That a programmer should be an intelligent person does not mean that it could not be an advantage if fpc run "out of the box".

It would be shining a better light on fpc then.

If the installing step is easy then many people can use their source code they wrote for dos for example.

Ok, there are then many challenges to do, but "hello world" runs already then and it is very easier to build up on "hello world" then got nothing to work.

Show quoted text 9 lines
Tomas Hajny wrote: > ;-) What would you think about distribution of > Win32 version with install.bat script asking you > to choose whether you want to put cygwin1.dll in > system32 or your new bin directory? So all you're asking for is a "If you don't know the answer, just press <ENTER>"? Isn't that the default already? ;)

It woul be an advantage, if there is a short description why to type what. ...at the moment the user can ask the same question if it is the default already...? ;)
When there is a description the user is more sure about the installation.

Vinzent.

Rainer

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Rainer Stratmann
Show quoted text 6 lines
> People don't dig into such stuff will be never good programmers, so I > see no real problem if they give up :) Programming is full of such > challenges. Partly I agree, but, what has a good programmer to do with internals of any os?

Philosophically saying, that would enter the programmer into a purely consumer relation with the OS. Which isn't the case in OSS, since there is a shared responsibility by all users, nobody excluded.

So in the case of an OSS - (substitute what you want for the dash), the programmer is as responsible as the next guy.

Reply by email

Micha Nelissen
to Rainer Stratmann: Pascal is an ideal, maybe the best programming language. Do you want that more people use…
Rainer Stratmann wrote
Partly I agree, but, what has a good programmer to do with internals of any os? That a programmer should be an intelligent person does not mean that it could not be an advantage if fpc run "out of the box".

What do you count as "internals" ? Surely the programmer should be familiar with basic directory layout ? Just like windows has C:\Windows, C:\Program Files, etc. unix has other conventions. I wouldn't count these as "internals" of the OS.

Micha

Reply by email

Tomas Hajny
to Marco van de Voort: Philosophically saying, that would enter the programmer into a purely consumer relation…
Marco van de Voort wrote 12 lines
> > People don't dig into such stuff will be never good programmers, so I > > see no real problem if they give up :) Programming is full of such > > challenges. > > Partly I agree, but, what has a good programmer to do with internals of > any > os? Philosophically saying, that would enter the programmer into a purely consumer relation with the OS. Which isn't the case in OSS, since there is a shared responsibility by all users, nobody excluded.

.
.

You hit the point, except that it _is_ becoming the case with Linux distributed by companies who provide support to their users. ;-) FPC installer shouldn't make assumptions about the type of user (consumer or OSS geek), because both exist nowadays.

Tomas

Reply by email

Marco van de Voort
to Tomas Hajny
Show quoted text 10 lines
Marco van de Voort wrote: > Philosophically saying, that would enter the programmer into a purely > consumer relation with the OS. Which isn't the case in OSS, since there is > a > shared responsibility by all users, nobody excluded. You hit the point, except that it _is_ becoming the case with Linux distributed by companies who provide support to their users. ;-) FPC installer shouldn't make assumptions about the type of user (consumer or OSS geek), because both exist nowadays.

Incorrect, and I don't see what an OSS geek is supposed to be.

I/We don't have a consumer relation with what you call consumers. Those distro's that pocketed the cash have.

That is not that I'm against decent release building, but there is a tradeoff here, and one that is aggrevated due to use of several installer and hierarchy conventions.

Reply by email

Rainer Stratmann
to Micha Nelissen: What do you count as "internals" ? Surely the programmer should be familiar with basic…
Micha Nelissen wrote 9 lines
Rainer Stratmann wrote: > Partly I agree, but, what has a good programmer to do with internals of > any os? That a programmer should be an intelligent person does not mean > that it could not be an advantage if fpc run "out of the box". What do you count as "internals" ? Surely the programmer should be familiar with basic directory layout ? Just like windows has C:\Windows, C:\Program Files, etc. unix has other conventions. I wouldn't count these as "internals" of the OS.

Yes, ideally the programmer should know all of it in any os. To simplify it, internals for me are things because a program does not run.

O.K. the conventions of Linux I don't know exactly... I don't know at the moment what /usr/local/ is good for... But is it necessary to know it for programming?

Micha

Rainer

Reply by email

Dale Welch
to Marco van de Voort: Incorrect, and I don't see what an OSS geek is supposed to be. I/We don't have a consumer…

Is there not a standard by distributions which tells software the standard place to install. I have noticed different distributions seem to have different preferences. :-)

It seems there should be a file in /etc
which would have defined places for installation of software, configuration information, and where to put variable files (files you change in operation). something like:
pref1_global-install /usr/local
pref2_global-install /usr/share
pref3_global_install /opt
pref_local_install ~/apps

place_local_link_in ~/bin
place_gobal_link_in /usr/local/bin
xmenu_add /usr/bin/xmenu_add [global|local] bin desc

--- dale

Marco van de Voort wrote 23 lines
> Marco van de Voort wrote: > > Philosophically saying, that would enter the programmer into a purely > > consumer relation with the OS. Which isn't the case in OSS, since there is > > a > > shared responsibility by all users, nobody excluded. > > You hit the point, except that it _is_ becoming the case with Linux > distributed by companies who provide support to their users. ;-) FPC > installer shouldn't make assumptions about the type of user (consumer or > OSS geek), because both exist nowadays. Incorrect, and I don't see what an OSS geek is supposed to be. I/We don't have a consumer relation with what you call consumers. Those distro's that pocketed the cash have. That is not that I'm against decent release building, but there is a tradeoff here, and one that is aggrevated due to use of several installer and hierarchy conventions. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal

Reply by email

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
to Alexandre Leclerc: 2006/7/20, Florian Klaempfl : There is autopackage.org which is a very nice piece of…
Alexandre Leclerc wrote
There is autopackage.org which is a very nice piece of work... but al c/c++ centric.

If you look on google there are several statements from the main developers of ubuntu, gentoo and other major distributions that say horrible things about autopackage. It´s considered one of the worse ways to install an application possible.

Just one link: http://devmanual.gentoo.org/ebuild-writing/functions/src_unpack/autopackage/index.html

There are dozens of other links of other distros says even worse things.

AFAIK the solution to easely install a software on Linux is to use the native packages, like .rpm and .deb

Thinking about that I wrote a tutorial for people that use free pascal and want to generate rpm packages for their software here:

http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/Deploying_Your_Application

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho

Reply by email

Rainer Stratmann
to Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote
AFAIK the solution to easely install a software on Linux is to use the native packages, like .rpm and .deb

The solution for fpc at this moment is quite ok. It does not have to be graphical.
It can be improved for those who don't know the linux conventions for example. I only want to say that because I write programs for people who don't know any conventions. So I see it from this point.
If fpc wants to get more users - then in my opinion the highest priority is to get fpc as fast as possible and as easy as possible to run. Conventions can be learned later also.
Also a good way would be to put it in distributions for example Knoppix or Kanotix.

Rainer

Reply by email

Arne Hanssen
to Rainer Stratmann
Rainer Stratmann wrote 14 lines
Am Freitag, 21. Juli 2006 20:00 schrieb Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho: > AFAIK the solution to easely install a software on Linux is to use the > native packages, like .rpm and .deb The solution for fpc at this moment is quite ok. It does not have to be graphical. It can be improved for those who don't know the linux conventions for example. I only want to say that because I write programs for people who don't know any conventions. So I see it from this point. If fpc wants to get more users - then in my opinion the highest priority is to get fpc as fast as possible and as easy as possible to run. Conventions can be learned later also. Also a good way would be to put it in distributions for example Knoppix or Kanotix.

Or convince someone to make native packages for the most used distros. But since this is not done already I'll guess noone volunteered.

Vennlig hilsen / Best regards |\ ___,,--, _ Arne Hanssen, Senja, Norway /,`--'' \-,,__,'/ http://www.tuxic.net/ |,4 ) )_ ) /~-----' ---------------------------------'---^~(_/-_)--(_/_)-------

Reply by email