I know it is a dangerous question that can easily turn into a holly war, flame or whatever. But here it is.

I have only used Lazarus or a general editor (usually Jedit, geany). Time ago I checked a little MSEgui and, well, I didn't go for it. In MSEgui I found fonts small and interface not very nice. Beside I found it a little confusing. Later I found that it could be compiled to make fonts bigger etc.

The honest reality is that I didn't devote much time to evaluate it. That's the problem of frameworks: when you learn one you get a little married with it, there are always complains and quirks, but before divorce you want to be sure that where you are moving to is better that what you have now. Unfortunately, getting the pros and cons requires working with it some time.

The first pro of MSEgui is that it is light.
In fact, That is the main pro of any thing that is not lazarus. No just because it's lighter but because lighter usually means less complex and less bugs.

Cons. The most important. It looks like Lazarus has more developers, so may be a better decision for the long term.
The second is the RAD. The immediate two directions updates, from GUI to source and from source to GUI, is very handy.

Any body has experience in both (or another IDE for FPC) and has his two cents?

By the way, has anybody managed to debug strings.text or any property with a getter?

I'm also learning MSEgui from a few weeks. It was very hard start but now I love it. First what you need understand is that it is not using any Qt, Gtk, WinAPI backend as Lazarus so you never get native OS look but of course you can imitate it with own style. Yes, MSEgui has styles engine. For example this is soft written in MSEgui: http://almin-soft.ru/index.php?multimedia/xelplayer/xelplayer-screenshots Here is demo of dark theme:
http://s14.postimg.org/qrw8tgrwx/linux.png
And default font size for all controls can be changed immedietaly at runtime: stockobjects.fonts[stf_default].height:= 30;

They are pros and cons for Lazarus and MSEgui. I would not stuck to the one framework. You must calculate needs for your project and choose the one which fit

Santiago A. wrote

Any body has experience in both (or another IDE for FPC) and has his two cents?

ps:
It's MSEide - if you are refering to the IDE portion of the project. ;-)

I switch between Lazarus and MSEide very frequently. Overall I prefer MSEide. Yes it's settings are different, but that doesn't mean bad. Don't let habits or what you are used to detract from trying something new. Once I got used to the MSEide way, I quite liked it a lot.

Here is my list...

Pros of MSEide:
- better code templates
- better debugging
- import & export of project settings
- macros (global and per project)
- no use of "packages" - I found macros work much better for me.
- it's really really fast. I also never install components in a IDE, so Lazarus Packages are of no use to me.
- not too much automation. I fight more and more with Lazarus to try and disable automation that I don't want or like. Martin managed to strike the exact right balance between automated code generation, and the programmer doing what it loves - writing code.
- Code navigation is not as fussy as Lazarus. eg: I have lots of code with include files in the head of the unit. From another project, Lazarus refuses to navigate that code. MSEide has no troubles.
- It is very stable, and Martin is super fast at fixing things. Normally everything gets done the same day. I have no idea how he finds the time to manage that!!
- Code Templates: Much better implemented than Lazarus. Separate files for each template (thus easy to share or update). Quick to configure or modify, and has all the features needed.
- Very good cross-platform console output window support. No need to run apps in a separate console window, just to see output. The IDE does this for you across platforms and consistently.
- Fantastic docking support. I can configure the IDE in seconds just the way I want - per project too. I like the small detached "control center" as Martin calls it - the main IDE window.

Cons of MSEide
- some quirky behaviour in the editor, but Martin has explain his reasoning for some - which actually makes perfect sense.
- Minor: Yes by default fonts are small, but again it is done to fit as much on the screen as posible. Simply pass a command line parameter to the IDE to adjust any fonts - a simple fix.
- No code-insight (or very limited). I think that's what it is called. Where you type for example a . and then get a list of available methods pop up. My work-around is to code with DocView help viewer permanently open on the side so I can quickly search for what I need.

I can't evaluate the gui toolkit MSEgui, as I don't use that. Neither do I use LCL for that matter.

Pros of Lazarus:
- Everybody here loves Delphi. Lazarus copies Delphi, so many seem instantly at home and happy. I'm not a lemming. ;-)
- Some like all the automation (code completion, auto indentation etc.)
- Debugging is moving in the right direction, but I still don't think it's as good as MSEide.

Cons of Lazarus:
- Things break often. As the saying goes: "Too many hands in the pot".
- Things change often.
- Lazarus Packages. Recently I was told I don't understand them correctly. I simply don't like them (I used too). Compiler settings often differ in a package compared to the project itself. Sometimes changes in code in a package (especially if include files were used) are not detected on a recompile of the project doesn't trigger a recompile of the package in question. This happens often, and I waste a lot of time debugging something I should have to. Sometimes packages a recompiled for no reason.
- I hate all the automation added to Lazarus. I fight for hours trying to disable some feature, and often can't find where... the settings are too complex and spread out over multiple screens. eg: In my one copy of Lazarus it still does seemingly random indentation or begin..end completion - often producing code I don't want. I still can't figure out where to disable that.
- big toolbar buttons in every IDE window - wasting massive amounts of screen space.
- LCL is inconsistent in feature between platforms. So I can't set up my IDE under Windows the same as I can under FreeBSD or Linux. For example I like my editor tabs on the right, and the tab text MUST be horizontal. This is not possible with LCL-Qt or LCL-Win.

I'm sure spending more time I can add more items to each category. My advice. Try each one for a questions if you don't understand. You can't evaluate something as complex as an IDE in a single day, or worse, just a couple of hours.

Regards,
- Graeme -

con of mside why I don't use it:

The behaviour of the cursor on the end of the line. You cannot go behind the line as it is usual in almost every other editor. Martin says it is difficult to integrate which I find hard to understand. That behaviour of the cursor confuses me. The other editors are smarter in that way. And the editor is the most important thing you use when programming.

My very short list:

Pro Lazarus:
- The LCL is very compatible with the Delphi VCL and so you can easily port Delphi VCL applications to Linux (but for reasons I don't understand Delphi moved to Firemonkey).
- On top of that there is a great number of rather compatible "widget types" that allow for easily porting such programs to multiple different OS and widget set variants.

Pro MSE:
- There is a "NoGui" "Widget" option out of the box, allowing for completely decent event driven programming (TTimer, Thread to mainthread signaling) with programs that run on (deeply embedded Linux-) systems with no widget set installed at all
- Martin provides the "IFI" add-on that allows for remoting the GUI (designed in MSEIDE) of a program via (e.g.) TCP/IP.

-Michael

2016-04-08 12:27 GMT+02:00 Rainer Stratmann :

I'm using MSEide only for design forms. For coding I'm still use Lazarus (with paths to MSEgui source) so I still can enjoy with Lazarus code completition, build modes etc. Double profit, light final GUI, fully functional Lazarus code editor

con of mside why I don't use it: The behaviour of the cursor on the end of the line. You cannot go behind the line as it is usual in almost every other editor.

Huh, what do you mean ?
I do not feel any difference with other editors...

The big plus, IMO, of MSEide is his weight.
: less than 8 megas for the hole installed/working IDE !

Also MSEide has greatest debug features.

And, because of the perfect assistive interface of MSEgui, there is a child of MSEide (https://github.com/fredvs/ideU) that makes MSEide the first and only IDE totally assisted.

Maybe (once again IMO) the only con is that MSEide cannot deal with LCL projects. But I do not use LCL anymore, so, for me, it is not a problem.

Fre;D

Fred van Stappen wrote

Maybe (once again IMO) the only con is that MSEide cannot deal with LCL projects.

Maybe not designing forms visually, but there is no problems in compiling LCL based projects with MSEide. In fact, I have done that many times before.

Regards,
- Graeme -

Oooops, I did not know that it was possible.
So, I do not see any con...

Fre;D

Krzysztof wrote

I'm using MSEide only for design forms. For coding I'm still use Lazarus (with paths to MSEgui source) so I still can enjoy with Lazarus code completition, build modes etc.

Just a little hint: MSEide has "build modes". IIRC it had it even before Lazarus introduced them. Please ask on the MSEide+MSEgui mailinglist if you like to know how it works.
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.ide.mseide.user
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mseide-msegui-talk

Martin

Yes, I know that. I'm already on that list :) . I'm just used to Lazarus build modes

"Santiago A." wrote

Cons. The most important. It looks like Lazarus has more developers, so may be a better decision for the long term. The second is the RAD. The immediate two directions updates, from GUI to source and from source to GUI, is very handy.

Can MSEgui/MSEide be used to make programs for Mac OSX ?

I could not find notes for that on the website.

Anthony Tekatch wrote

Can MSEgui/MSEide be used to make programs for Mac OSX ?

Currently not. In case of OSX-X11 compatibility layer the effort probably is manageable. I would prefer a Quartz backend. Sponsors wanted! ;-)

Martin