I was being asked about this the other day, the boss is thinking about PDAs. Can anybody summarise where Lazarus is at, for both Native and cross-development?

I notice a thread from earlier that the Android can only run Java apps, and I presume that the iPhone and iPad are completely out.

As I understand it CE (x86 and ARM) should be OK- can Lazarus itself run on this?

Apart from that Netbooks etc. running standard Linux should be OK, presumably that covers the current generation of Palm.

FreePascal definitely works on iPhone and I know at least of 2 apps that are on the appstore that were written using FreePascal.

Dominique.

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote

I was being asked about this the other day, the boss is thinking about PDAs. Can anybody summarise where Lazarus is at, for both Native and cross-development?

With Free Pascal itself you can compile for Windows CE i386 (not tested that much) and ARM, iPhone and iPad (both ARM) as well as Linux on ARM.

With Lazarus you can build GUI applications for Windows CE i386 (also not really tested) and ARM as well as Linux on ARM. iPhone and iPad might work some day once a Cocoa widgetset is implemented.

I notice a thread from earlier that the Android can only run Java apps, and I presume that the iPhone and iPad are completely out.

No, they aren't. In fact (as far as I oversee it) it's easier to achieve then Android, because it's all still native code.

As I understand it CE (x86 and ARM) should be OK- can Lazarus itself run on this?

I believe that it was never tested whether it even compiles for that target. Also CE on ARM tends to have much less RAM so that it's even a problem to get FPC itself running on them.

Apart from that Netbooks etc. running standard Linux should be OK, presumably that covers the current generation of Palm.

On Linux you need to have enough RAM (mostly for FPC), a X window system and either GTK(+) or QT to run Lazarus.

Regards,
Sven

So what is the problem with iPhone- apart from Steve Jobs? Is it purely licensing or is it something to do with getting apps into the App Store?

I've compiled and run Lazarus on an ARM-based Linux system with 32Mb RAM plus 512Mb swap. The thing to really avoid is the standard desktop environments- I was using FluxBox.

FreePascal definitely works on iPhone and I know at least of 2 apps that are on the appstore that were written using FreePascal.

Thanks Dominique. So what's all the current brouhaha about Apple insisting that only their own tools should be used?

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote

As I understand it CE (x86 and ARM) should be OK- can Lazarus itself run on this?

As for applications built using Lazarus-WinCE take a look here: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Windows_CE_Interface#Gallery

About Lazarus running in Windows CE I think this wouldn't be useful, because the slower compilation and smaller screen would make development much slower then the few seconds necessary to copy the executable to the device via ActiveSync. Should be doable if you have a powerful WinCE system with normal screen and keyboard attached, but that is extremely rare.

I don't know of any problems (but I'm not an Apple customer ^^). Maybe there are even none, because the only real concern of Apple is Adobe with Flash. Also there might not have been enough "PR" for FPC on those devices...

Well... with swap space it works of course. But e.g. most Windows CE ARM devices don't have that "luxury".

Can you check what the memory and swap usage is when running Lazarus and when compiling an application (maybe compiling Lazarus itself clean)? (I'm just curious)

Regards,
Sven

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote

Thanks Dominique. So what's all the current brouhaha about Apple insisting that only their own tools should be used?

They essentially don't want interpreted/script/virtual machine code other than JavaScript/HTML5 running on their device.
And is mostly a ploy to stop the likes of Flash games/apps running on their device.

I personally have a MonoTouch app ( C# ) currently on the appstore and as mentioned, FreePascal and other non Objective C/C/C++ apps have also been approved on the appstore, since that new clause was introduced. As long as it compiles to native iPhone calls, they seem to be fine with it.

Now that won't stop them in future saying, well you HAVE to use Objective C, but then companies like Unity3D and quite a few of the big iPhone developer and publishers, like EAm will have to invest in other dev tools to target the iPhone. Which would mean less apps on the store, and I'm not sure Apple wants that to happen.

Well that is my take on it.

Ha ... an interresting positive turn. I expected them to enforce the rule.

Sven Barth wrote

Can you check what the memory and swap usage is when running Lazarus and when compiling an application (maybe compiling Lazarus itself clean)? (I'm just curious)

Not at the moment I'm afraid. I got bogged down with EABI, and currently all my ARM machines are tied up doing special jobs. I've got some general-purpose boards but they come with CE rather than Linux and so I'm going to have to do some hacking (OpenFirmware?) to get them running.

From what I remember Lazarus was just about usable, i.e. it wasn't spending all its time swapping. /However/ this was around a year ago and I'd almost certainly built it for GTK v1, I don't know whether there are still issues which slow GTK v2 right down when X is run over a LAN- these were headless so I had to use either X or VNC.

I agree in the general case. However I can envisage situations where an embedded system developer would want to be able to run the IDE on the target system (if only to prove to the customer that /of/ /course/ there was a real computer in there :-) or where it was more convenient to run natively on an ARM-based CE system than cross on an x86-based NetBook.

Improbable, I grant, but not impossible. But you've no idea the sort of questions I get asked around here :-)

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote

Ha ... an interresting positive turn. I expected them to enforce the rule.

There's a report in this morning's paper that the Library of Congress has ruled that it's legal in the USA to "jailbreak" an appliance. This obviously doesn't affect what apps Apple must accept into their AppStore (that would be an antitrust issue) but I think it makes it easier for users to get software from non-Apple sources and might possibly stop Apple and others from insisting that unlocking voids the warranty.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/technology/27iphone.html

Probably subject to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Sven Barth wrote

No, they aren't. In fact (as far as I oversee it) it's easier to achieve then Android, because it's all still native code.

Couldn't FPC some day in the future be be given a new backend that emits Java VM bytecode and the linker would jar and zip instead of linking a binary and the LCL two new widgetsets, one that uses swing and the other one that uses whatever Android uses as GUI? This would immediately catapult Lazarus into regions that are currently exclusively occupied by Netbeans and IntelliJ.

I think that yes, from my experience with java assembler I would say that java can be treated as just another CPU, although with some special features. Some developers say that no, it would never work good enough to be compatible with most existing code. I guess that only trying will prove if it works or not.

I was assuming that FPC (compiler) and Lazarus (IDE) aren't tied together in the future. If resources were available I could see the Environment dialog pivoting off FPC (For desktop/server computing) Android SDK X.Y, X-Code *, etc.

Meaning it is entirely plausible that Lazarus leverages Android and other SDKs in the future and output application packages identical or nearly identical to what is expected. With that being said... C and Java would be written/expected as far as Syntax is concerned.

Couldn't FPC some day in the future be be given a new backend that emits Java VM bytecode and the linker would jar and zip instead of linking a binary and the LCL two new widgetsets, one that uses swing and the other one that uses whatever Android uses as GUI?

Not very likely. The language had to be changed at the same time, to take care of e.g. the Java garbage-collected objects. Borland has given up with .NET integration, and left it to RemObjects to provide an dedicated Delphi for .NET - the same would be wise for FPC.

DoDi

FreePascal definitely works on iPhone and I know at least of 2 apps that are on the appstore that were written using FreePascal.

May we know which fpc-made app that already went on Apple appstore? I think it could become a good material to promote FPC/Lazarus. TIA.

-Bee-

Bee Jay wrote

May we know which fpc-made app that already went on Apple appstore? I think it could become a good material to promote FPC/Lazarus. TIA.

Don't forget that newer SDK agreement forbids applications written in not C/C++/ObjC language.

It would be a good promotion for FPC/Lazarus, but the Apple might ban the applications as well, once the app "confesses" in using non-Apple tool

thanks,
dmitry

Bernd Kreuss wrote

Couldn't FPC some day in the future be be given a new backend that emits Java VM bytecode and the linker would jar and zip instead of linking a binary and the LCL two new widgetsets, one that uses swing and the other one that uses whatever Android uses as GUI?

In theory it should be possible for FPC to generate Java Bytecode (or .NET IL). The problem is that both systems already provide a RTL and their own object hierarchy. So we'd need to write a complete new RTL that for those that takes them into account.

In summary: Not impossible, but very very much work.

Regards,
Sven

Andrew Brunner wrote

Meaning it is entirely plausible that Lazarus leverages Android and other SDKs in the future and output application packages identical or nearly identical to what is expected. ?With that being said... C and Java would be written/expected as far as Syntax is concerned.

That could be a direction if people contribute, but I don't think this will ever be the primary direction.

Hi Dmitry,
There are many apps on the AppStore that do not use C/C++/ObjC. For instance, any game written using Unity3D ( and there are loads ), would need to be
removed from the AppStore as that uses MonoTouch for scripting, and it is common knowledge
that it uses MonoTouch for scripting.
TweetStation, a silly Tweet client, is written in MonoTouch and in its credit screen it clearly
states that it was written in C#. This would have had to go through Apple's approval team and
they have allowed it on the store.
My own game is written using MonoTouch and I'll be updating the credits screen to
indicate that it was also written in C#.

My advice would be continue using FreePascal for iPhone until Apple stop approving the apps.
Also the knowledge gained from using the APIs, will translate to whatever language
you switch to, should Apple ever really ban non C/C++/ObjC apps.

Dominique.

dmitry boyarintsev wrote

It would be a good promotion for FPC/Lazarus, but the Apple might ban the applications as well,

No problem as lately the court ruled that Apple's jailing application distribution in their own stores is not protected by the law.

-Michael

Are you talking about the Librarian of Congress ruling of a week ago? In that case- if I understand the American legal system- it's a ruling by a member of the executive and hasn't been tested in court for legality. What's more the ruling was about whether users can "jailbreak" their appliances rather than whether Apple (or others) could be compelled to distribute an app, and if most users get their apps from Apple AppStore which won't accept FPC that's as good as a blanket prohibition.

We appear to be back at a situation where some people say that FPC (hence Lazarus) can't be used legitimately with Apple's SDK, and others saying that Apple have already accepted FPC-written apps so have probably relaxed the requirement. I for one remain confused.

Both are true, as far as I understand. Apple just isn't enforcing its own policy, but there are no guarantees that this won't change in future. If they can do it with a large company and loyal Apple supporter like Adobe, they can do it to anyone. I can't believe developers take this lying down, either, as I just won't take the risk in spending time and energy developing for a platform where someone can flick a kill switch on my app at any time.

Apologies for the o/t.

Henry

The license agreement says that they can ban your app if it is not written in C/C++/Obj C,
So in "theory" they can ban any apps that aren't. But in fact, they have approved lots of non-C/C++/Obj C apps
and these are selling just fine on the app store.

I think the question comes down to whether you want to take the risk and use FPC/C# or what ever else or play it safe and use C/C++/Obj C? For me the time saved in productivity by using FPC/C# outweighs the risk of potentially having my app banned. If it ever gets properly banned, then I'll have to decide if the iPhone is a viable platform to warrant switching to C/C++/Obj C.

Dominique.

Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote

We appear to be back at a situation where some people say that FPC (hence Lazarus) can't be used legitimately with Apple's SDK, and others saying that Apple have already accepted FPC-written apps so have probably relaxed the requirement. I for one remain confused.

Henry Vermaak wrote

supporter like Adobe, they can do it to anyone. I can't believe developers take this lying down, either, as I just won't take the risk in spending time and energy developing for a platform where someone can flick a kill switch on my app at any time.

I agree, but we also have to consider other portals or facilitators such as Google. I'd also suggest that people such as Apple do have a legitimate right to exclude developers and apps which have been proven to screw users' appliances.

What /is/ the AppStore in this context? It's obviously a repository at an address flashed into Apple devices, but does it also sign apps validating that they're legitimate?

They can do anything they like with _their_ appstore, as long as they don't force me to use it. I've paid for the device, not for the lock-in.

The whole "we are just protecting you from nasty apps" is just the spin they'd like you to believe. Unfortunately we all know that Apple haven't just excluded apps which are bad (if you've been following the IT news concerning the iPhone). I believe the biggest reason they've blocked flash is that it bypasses their appstore by running in the browser. There are millions of flash games on the web. Let's see how they handle html 5.

What /is/ the AppStore in this context? It's obviously a repository at an address flashed into Apple devices, but does it also sign apps validating that they're legitimate?

I really don't know.

Henry

The apple user base is incredibly loyal and will look to the AppStore for their applications.

It does give the developer very good access to a prospective market which isn't really available in any other product or avenue.

If I could find a way of developing for their products without having to invest in their hardware it would certainly be worth considering, even given the control that they tend to seek over the Apps in their store.