OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
58 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

ik-6


On Sun, Feb 17, <a href="tel:2013" value="+9722013" target="_blank">2013 at 1:58 PM, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> wrote:
Am 17.02.2013 10:53, schrieb ik:
>
> Pascal is only one programming language I use, and only for hobby, not
> for make a living,

The same applies here.

> and that's partly because of you.

Well and partly you :) I'am pretty sure that some of the developers
would blog about their work if somebody pays them for blogging. But you
don't do so (obviously I understand this), they have to earn their
living by other means.

I'm a freelancer for the past 6 years, so please pay me on all of the amount
of time I spent talking, lecturing and evangelist FPC and Lazarus on my own expense.

You never see me ask for it, because I do it because I want to see Pascal in the industry.
I do it because I have need to see it used, to make programming fun again, or for any
other reason.
 

> You prefer to create new features, but keep it to yourself, and hoping
> that someone will catch-up.

You miss the point. My time for fpc is limited and fixed. If I write
blog entries instead of coding, fpc will evolve slower. If I spent 25%
of all of my fpc time on blogging instead of improving fpc, maybe pascal
would be dead now because no advanced OSS compiler is available and it
would be only my private pet compiler I use to compile my chess programs
and the controll software for our model railway.

When I know why Florian (and others) started FPC/K, why do they implement
feature X, and not feature Y, when I understand the story of the core developers,
It's easier to relate to things.

I can talk about a feature that you or anyone else added or removed, but I can't
bring the whole story of it.

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, while Linus that have an OS that exists for 21
years can ?

This type of things are important more then you think.

But not only this, take a look at the freepascal.org web site: animated gif (from the 90's),
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...

It's not easy to find documentation for things, some are at the wiki, 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 ? unless it's pure hobby and all of this does not matter ...
 

> It does not work like this, specially with Pascal.

How do you know so? Developers quickly realize if a tool is no evolving
and all advertisement is only buzz and will quickly use other tools.

Developers, doctors, and all the people who have a profession does not choose a tool that
they know nothing about, and if they have too much choice, they usually choose the one that
everyone(tm) choose, not because it is good for them, but because everyone is using it.

It was proven so many times over and over again, you can find on the web people such as
Dan Ariely have a lot of talks and books about it, if you have time for such things ...
 




_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

Florian Klaempfl
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.

>
> But not only this, take a look at the freepascal.org
> <http://freepascal.org> web site: animated gif (from the 90's),

Ever looked at gcc.gnu.org, kernel.org, llvm.org etc.?

> 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.

> 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?

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

ik-6
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> 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 looked at gcc.gnu.org, 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  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

Michael Van Canneyt


On Sun, 17 Feb 2013, ik wrote:

>>
>> 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 ?

I will repeat myself. I have said this on the lists many times:

We count on YOU, the users to spread the news.

Form a community. Do whatever it takes.

We are not the kind of people that are suitable to do this:

Personally, I never read blogs. They are a waste of my time; 99% are pure drivel.
Everybody has opinions, few actually have something interesting to say.
Knowing that I have such attitude, do you think I am suitable to write a blog ?

I hope not :-)

What I (and Florian) are trying to say is that our limited time is better spent
on coding than on spreading the news of FPC. But no-one is stopping you from spreading the
news, on the contrary. We'll be glad that you do, because it means you think FPC
is worth the effort.

Trying to convince us to spread the news, however, is wasted effort.

Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

Florian Klaempfl
In reply to this post by ik-6
Am 17.02.2013 18:10, schrieb ik:
>>
>> 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

Wrong: FPC is OSS so I don't keep it for myself, if people cannot read
svn rss feeds or release announcement, well, I cannot help.

> Nice, Pascal is at the same level of usage and exposure as gcc, Linux
> kernel and llvm,

And you think some fancy webpage filled with java script (which is
turned off in my browser) would change this?

>>>
>>> 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

Well, then it's also fine not to waste time with docs. People like to
discover new stuff in their toys.

>
> And documentation should be at one place, including new features,
> workarounds etc... for old versions.

Possible, and who should do this work?

Yes, I got it: you compare fpc docs written by a few people in their
spare leisure time with docs written and maintaned mainly by multi
billion companies existing for decades.

>>
>> 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 ?

So what do you miss in the 2.6.0 news post? What do you miss in the
android news post?
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

wkitty42
In reply to this post by Sven Barth-2
On 2/17/2013 04:45, Sven Barth wrote:
> Am 16.02.2013 22:14 schrieb "Michael Van Canneyt" <[hidden email]>:
>  > True. But I think Florian (or my) time is better spent on actaul coding.
>  > Let people that like blogs do the blogging.
>  >
>  > They're almost certainly going to be better at it.
>
> I'm doing feature announcements. That can be nearly considered as blogging :)

post them in a blog and it /is/ blogging ;)

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

Tomas Hajny-2
In reply to this post by ik-6
On Sun, February 17, 2013 18:10, ik wrote:
 .
 .
> Yes to solve everything but keep it for yourself :P

You (and many others) can use it (and do so as seen from download
statistics, bug reports, etc.), right?


 .
 .
> Should I continue, or do you get my point ?
 .
 .

Better not with this discussion, if you ask me. ;-) I believe that both of
you expressed your points and everybody interested had the opportunity to
understand both views. Both views are valid and everybody should do what
he can do best (and what brings fun to him if he does it as a hobby).


>> 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 ?

If even commercial company like Embarcadero uses FPC for compilation for
some targets, doesn't it prove that there are some people knowing about
it? Some other proofs mentioned above too. Still, certain PR is indeed
useful, feel free to continue providing it. :-)

Tomas


_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

wkitty42
In reply to this post by Michael Van Canneyt
On 2/17/2013 12:44, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> What I (and Florian) are trying to say is that our limited time is better spent
> on coding than on spreading the news of FPC. But no-one is stopping you from
> spreading the news, on the contrary. We'll be glad that you do, because it means
> you think FPC is worth the effort.
>
> Trying to convince us to spread the news, however, is wasted effort.

i know exactly this feeling... it is like doing custom programing... i can/will
do that and those contracting it will pay me for that development... i won't
write it and then try to make money selling it so they can get it for less
cost... they can recoup their costs for development by reselling it themselves...

pretty much the same... i'm not a marketer or a salesman... i will sell you
something i have if you come to me looking for it but i won't cold call you or
shove it in your face trying to get you to buy it...
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

vfclists .
In reply to this post by ik-6
On 17 February 2013 17:10, ik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> 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 looked at gcc.gnu.org, 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  -  [hidden email]
>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> 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
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.
FreePascal aims to support and retain compatibility with many
different dialects which sprung up over the years and that isn't easy.
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.

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.

--
Frank Church

=======================
http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

Florian Klaempfl
Am 17.02.2013 20:31, schrieb Frank Church:
> 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

c:\fpc\docs>dir ex*.pp /s | grep -c ex
668

What do I miss?
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

ik-6
In reply to this post by vfclists .
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Frank Church <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17 February 2013 17:10, ik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> 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 looked at gcc.gnu.org, 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  -  [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>> _______________________________________________
>> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
>> 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  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

vfclists .
In reply to this post by Florian Klaempfl
On 17 February 2013 19:35, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Am 17.02.2013 20:31, schrieb Frank Church:
>> 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
>
> c:\fpc\docs>dir ex*.pp /s | grep -c ex
> 668
>
> What do I miss?

I am referring to the HTML docs at -
http://www.freepascal.org/docs.var. it's not the type that users can
leave comments and examples in, like PHP for instance.

I am not complaining about the official docs, I actually praised them,
but users come to Lazarus and FPC with expectations based on what they
see in other projects and that is the cause of the complaints.

> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal



--
Frank Church

=======================
http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

Leonardo M. Ramé
In reply to this post by ik-6
>________________________________
> From: ik <[hidden email]>
>To: FPC-Pascal users discussions <[hidden email]>
>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 5:30 PM
>Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal
>
>
>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.

Whaaat? I don't like java, but don't you know you can use javac command line?, and program in any text editor?.


Leonardo M. Ramé
http://leonardorame.blogspot.com

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

ik-6
In reply to this post by vfclists .
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:57 PM, Frank Church <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17 February 2013 19:35, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Am 17.02.2013 20:31, schrieb Frank Church:
>>> 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
>>
>> c:\fpc\docs>dir ex*.pp /s | grep -c ex
>> 668
>>
>> What do I miss?
>
> I am referring to the HTML docs at -
> http://www.freepascal.org/docs.var. it's not the type that users can
> leave comments and examples in, like PHP for instance.
>
> I am not complaining about the official docs, I actually praised them,
> but users come to Lazarus and FPC with expectations based on what they
> see in other projects and that is the cause of the complaints.

and the complains are justified. fpc as a project lack of people to do things.
for ruby the Rails project brought a lot of people to develop with the language.
at python it was django. what is the project that will make people to
try and use pascal ?
how can you find "new blood" to bring to the projects ?
how can you make sure that people are interested ?

>
>> _______________________________________________
>> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>
>
>
> --
> Frank Church
>
> =======================
> http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

ik-6
In reply to this post by Leonardo M. Ramé
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 10:59 PM, Leonardo M. Ramé <[hidden email]> wrote:

>>________________________________
>> From: ik <[hidden email]>
>>To: FPC-Pascal users discussions <[hidden email]>
>>Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2013 5:30 PM
>>Subject: Re: [fpc-pascal] OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal
>>
>>
>>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.
>
> Whaaat? I don't like java, but don't you know you can use javac command line?, and program in any text editor?.

Try to develop an application/library with Java using using an editor
such as vim, and you will want to kill yourself.
too many files (each class has it's own file), the path where you
place the files is part of the namespace.
ant is not very simple to use, and if you use tools such as spring in
get harder.
it's not simple to detect without reading documentation what are the
exception that are thrown back, and almost every error with java is an
exception.

you can't really use java without an ide for normal projects, only for
simple ones, and I speak from experience.

>
>
> Leonardo M. Ramé
> http://leonardorame.blogspot.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

vfclists .
In reply to this post by ik-6
On 17 February 2013 20:30, ik <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Frank Church <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On 17 February 2013 17:10, ik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> 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 looked at gcc.gnu.org, 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  -  [hidden email]
>>>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
>>> 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  -  [hidden email]
>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal


Google and Sun are multibillion dollar corporations. Their owners
visit the local convenience store in their private jets. They could
fund the development of a debugger, an interpreter and a brand new IDE
for FPC/Lazarus out of their pocket change, so that comparison is
inapplicable here. They also expect a return of billions from their
investments.

MOST IMPORTANT (yes ALL CAPS) they have shifted the focus of most
development away from the desktop to the web, and that is why
languages and tools like Pascal and Delphi suffer because they have
diverted a great deal of talent and effort, only for the users to wind
up on rocky shores. Delphi, NET and C# users allfeel betrayed. Do you
see what happened to Borland after they focused their effort on
JBuilder? And still those languages do not fulfill their promise. Can
Eclipse, or any Ruby or Python tool develop GUI rich applications as
well as Lazarus? I don't think so, or else I wouldn't be using it.

After all the corporate funding and support Eclipse still has problems
that they now seek contributions from end  users.

Google has developed Go and are developing Dart for the web, so they
can develop desktop like apps to rent to subscribers. I would say they
should develop Dart as a general purpose language with support for the
web and it would gain more traction, only that goes against their
business model.

So FreePascal is not that bad at all. Their leading developers did not
develop FPC with the intention to be millionaires, although I'd wager
that given their skills and experience they make a pretty comfortable
living from it.

The killer app that would revive Pascal's fortunes hasn't been
developed yet. The best thing that can happen to it is a much improved
development experience, and sorry to say that is not really a compiler
issue or a dialect issue. Perhaps some one should inform the GNOME
developers that Lazarus and FreePascal should be their developer tool
of choice. With a Pascal to Javascript translator, they could have
everything they need for success.

--
Frank Church

=======================
http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

wkitty42
In reply to this post by Florian Klaempfl
On 2/17/2013 14:35, Florian Klämpfl wrote:
> Am 17.02.2013 20:31, schrieb Frank Church:
>> 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
>
> c:\fpc\docs>dir ex*.pp /s | grep -c ex
> 668
>
> What do I miss?

they are not /in/ the documentation to be read with the docs... think about it
like a programming book you by at the store... you are reading a chapter about
pointers and there's a simple working demo included in the chapter that is
expanded on the further you read in the chapter...

that the sources for the demos are on the disk is a GoodThing<tm> because that
saves the reader from having to type them in... however, that they are on the
disk and not in the documentation also means that the reader cannot look at and
contemplate them while reading the (printed) documentation while in the
""library"" with their C0FFEE while taking their morning/daily
"constitutional"... or at the breakfast table or on the bus or train or even
just while reading in bed...

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

Rainer Stratmann
In reply to this post by Florian Klaempfl
Am Sunday 17 February 2013 18:45:50 schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
> Am 17.02.2013 18:10, schrieb ik:
> > Nice, Pascal is at the same level of usage and exposure as gcc, Linux
> > kernel and llvm,
>
> And you think some fancy webpage filled with java script (which is
> turned off in my browser) would change this?

In my opinion it would be ok to make the webpage a little bit more eyecandy.
That can be done also without java script(!)

http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Das_Auge_isst_mit
(only in german)

> > Look at:
> >
> > http://ruby-doc.org/
> > http://www.python.org/doc/
> > ...
> >
> > Should I continue, or do you get my point ?
>
> Yes, I got it: you compare fpc docs written by a few people in their
> spare leisure time with docs written and maintaned mainly by multi
> billion companies existing for decades.

It would be also ok to have the possibility to donate the fpc project.
But some time ago you refused this because you feel too much pressure
(responsible) then.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

wkitty42
On 2/17/2013 19:40, Rainer Stratmann wrote:
> Am Sunday 17 February 2013 18:45:50 schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
>> Am 17.02.2013 18:10, schrieb ik:
>>> Nice, Pascal is at the same level of usage and exposure as gcc, Linux
>>> kernel and llvm,
>>
>> And you think some fancy webpage filled with java script (which is
>> turned off in my browser) would change this?
>
> In my opinion it would be ok to make the webpage a little bit more eyecandy.

eyecandy isn't worth any more than regular candy... candy is candy which is only
a sweet to attract those who can't/won't stomach the reality of the basics...

   a spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down...

> That can be done also without java script(!)

agreed... but too many are wrapped up in making candy to suck on rather than a
real meal that actually satisfies the hunger...

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: OT a bit - Planet Object Pascal

ik-6
In reply to this post by vfclists .
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 11:24 PM, Frank Church <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 17 February 2013 20:30, ik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 9:31 PM, Frank Church <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> On 17 February 2013 17:10, ik <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 5:05 PM, Florian Klämpfl <[hidden email]> 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 looked at gcc.gnu.org, 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  -  [hidden email]
>>>>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
>>>> 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  -  [hidden email]
>>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>> _______________________________________________
>> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
>> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>
>
> Google and Sun are multibillion dollar corporations. Their owners

Sorry but that is bullshit. I'm a freelancer, works alone, with
minimal budget, yet I find the time to write specifications for my
clients, documentation, emails, explaining things, checking stuff,
doing booking, and even cleaning my work space.

You give excuse to keep the existing problem, but actually there are
so many open source projects of one or two people developing that
prove that it can be, it's all up to you.


> visit the local convenience store in their private jets. They could
> fund the development of a debugger, an interpreter and a brand new IDE
> for FPC/Lazarus out of their pocket change, so that comparison is
> inapplicable here. They also expect a return of billions from their
> investments.
>
> MOST IMPORTANT (yes ALL CAPS) they have shifted the focus of most
> development away from the desktop to the web, and that is why
> languages and tools like Pascal and Delphi suffer because they have
> diverted a great deal of talent and effort, only for the users to wind
> up on rocky shores. Delphi, NET and C# users allfeel betrayed. Do you
> see what happened to Borland after they focused their effort on
> JBuilder? And still those languages do not fulfill their promise. Can
> Eclipse, or any Ruby or Python tool develop GUI rich applications as
> well as Lazarus? I don't think so, or else I wouldn't be using it.
>
> After all the corporate funding and support Eclipse still has problems
> that they now seek contributions from end  users.
>
> Google has developed Go and are developing Dart for the web, so they
> can develop desktop like apps to rent to subscribers. I would say they
> should develop Dart as a general purpose language with support for the
> web and it would gain more traction, only that goes against their
> business model.
>
> So FreePascal is not that bad at all. Their leading developers did not
> develop FPC with the intention to be millionaires, although I'd wager
> that given their skills and experience they make a pretty comfortable
> living from it.
>
> The killer app that would revive Pascal's fortunes hasn't been
> developed yet. The best thing that can happen to it is a much improved
> development experience, and sorry to say that is not really a compiler
> issue or a dialect issue. Perhaps some one should inform the GNOME
> developers that Lazarus and FreePascal should be their developer tool
> of choice. With a Pascal to Javascript translator, they could have
> everything they need for success.
>
> --
> Frank Church
>
> =======================
> http://devblog.brahmancreations.com
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
123