Object pascal a "Modern Language"

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
26 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Matt Henley-2
I belong to a mailing list for a defunt open source chemical process
simulator (Sim42).  Members of the list are now showing interest in
restarting the effort.  It was originally written in python which
cause some speed issues.  Several of the list members (including me)
suggested freepascal and lazarus.  The gentleman spearheading the
effort sent the following and I would like to know what is the best
way to respond.  I do not know what features define a "modern
language" and would like to know what points to bring up.

"My personal objective is not just to put out a simulator, but a fast
and efficient simulator.  Furthermore, personally, I do not consider a
program portable if it is written in a language which very few can
understand.  A modern language such as any of the .NET languages will
meet the efficiency objective but portability remains an issue.  While
I do have the Visual Studio .NET and I am happy with it, I understand
that not everybody has it and it is not cheap.  I looked at the
Lazarus project and (at least at a first glance) it is indeed very
"Visual" and will likely do the job.  It will however, limit us to
Pascal which is not really a modern language.  For those of you who
are in favor of using Lazarus, can you assure the rest of us that
Pascal has been modernized? "

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Michael Van Canneyt


On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Matt Henley wrote:

> I belong to a mailing list for a defunt open source chemical process
> simulator (Sim42).  Members of the list are now showing interest in
> restarting the effort.  It was originally written in python which
> cause some speed issues.  Several of the list members (including me)
> suggested freepascal and lazarus.  The gentleman spearheading the
> effort sent the following and I would like to know what is the best
> way to respond.  I do not know what features define a "modern
> language" and would like to know what points to bring up.
>
> "My personal objective is not just to put out a simulator, but a fast
> and efficient simulator.  Furthermore, personally, I do not consider a
> program portable if it is written in a language which very few can
> understand.  A modern language such as any of the .NET languages will
> meet the efficiency objective but portability remains an issue.  While
> I do have the Visual Studio .NET and I am happy with it, I understand
> that not everybody has it and it is not cheap.  I looked at the
> Lazarus project and (at least at a first glance) it is indeed very
> "Visual" and will likely do the job.  It will however, limit us to
> Pascal which is not really a modern language.  For those of you who
> are in favor of using Lazarus, can you assure the rest of us that
> Pascal has been modernized? "

Most people out there probably think of Pascal as still being in
the state it was in when Niklaus Wirth first designed it.

Object Pascal to date is fully OOP, and misses nothing that C#, C++
or Java has: Interfaces, Exceptions, Classes: you name it, Object
Pascal has it.

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Paul Davidson
In reply to this post by Matt Henley-2
Mild Pascal rant:

Thank you for considering Pascal.  Contrary to popular belief, Pascal
is indeed a modern language.  Though developed some time ago it has
evolved the to include most of the extensions seen in 'modern'
languages.  It should be noted that modern is not synonymous with
recently invented.

Pascal is fully OO.  Many would say the implementation of OO is better
and more complete than C++.  Performance is on par with C and C++.  Any
differences usually related to automatic and predictable garbage
collection present in Pascal.  Accessing C libraries is also simple.

Coming from a long background in large scale application design and
management, Pascal has other advantages.  The syntax is somewhat simple
than C and Java.  As well, experience and studies have shown that the
same skill and effort applied to a C and Pascal project usually results
in about 50% less productions bugs in the Pascal code.

FPC specifically has more advantages.  First is the active (and
somewhat rabid:) development community.  It is centered in Europe,
where the 'language du jour' does not hold as much sway as it does in
North America.  Also, there is a large collection of libraries, tools
and utilities available.

FPC handles many different flavours of the language.  It is portable
(as is Lazarus) over many operating systems and processor types.  It is
far more portable than Java and .Net (for different reasons)!

A thought-out design of your application can be as fast and portable as
you wish.

Thank you for considering FPC and good luck with your project.

</RANT>

On Mar 3, 2006, at 12:01, Matt Henley wrote:

> I belong to a mailing list for a defunt open source chemical process
> simulator (Sim42).  Members of the list are now showing interest in
> restarting the effort.  It was originally written in python which
> cause some speed issues.  Several of the list members (including me)
> suggested freepascal and lazarus.  The gentleman spearheading the
> effort sent the following and I would like to know what is the best
> way to respond.  I do not know what features define a "modern
> language" and would like to know what points to bring up.
>
> "My personal objective is not just to put out a simulator, but a fast
> and efficient simulator.  Furthermore, personally, I do not consider a
> program portable if it is written in a language which very few can
> understand.  A modern language such as any of the .NET languages will
> meet the efficiency objective but portability remains an issue.  While
> I do have the Visual Studio .NET and I am happy with it, I understand
> that not everybody has it and it is not cheap.  I looked at the
> Lazarus project and (at least at a first glance) it is indeed very
> "Visual" and will likely do the job.  It will however, limit us to
> Pascal which is not really a modern language.  For those of you who
> are in favor of using Lazarus, can you assure the rest of us that
> Pascal has been modernized? "
>
> Thanks for any help
> Matt Henley
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>
>
>
P Davidson
Corax Networks Inc.
http://CoraxNetworks.com

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Mark Andrews-3
In reply to this post by Matt Henley-2
Matt Henley wrote:

>understand.  A modern language such as any of the .NET languages will
>meet the efficiency objective but portability remains an issue.  While
>
I believe the with .Net, you will have the same speed issues that you
have with Python since it compiles to CLR and not native machine code.
So he is mistaken in his initial premise. Java will have the same issue.
Plus, when running a simulation, you don't want the program to suddenly
decide it has to do garbage collection, thus slowing down. Any .Net or
Java program will have these problems due to their very architecture.

What does he consider a "modern language". You can't begin to quell his
anxiety or disperse his ignorance until he can give you a definition.
Ask for specifics.

Is he aware that Lazarus is written in Free Pascal? I would show him
Pixel... it is very impressive.

Mark




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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Micha Nelissen
In reply to this post by Michael Van Canneyt
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:28:40 +0100 (Romance Standard Time)
Michael Van Canneyt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Most people out there probably think of Pascal as still being in
> the state it was in when Niklaus Wirth first designed it.
>
> Object Pascal to date is fully OOP, and misses nothing that C#, C++
> or Java has: Interfaces, Exceptions, Classes: you name it, Object
> Pascal has it.

That's simply not true. C++ has multiple inheritance, templates, classes
in shared libraries; all things which FPC does not have. FPC does have
metaclasstypes (and virtual constructors) in the OO area, which C++ does
not have.

I do consider FPC to be a modern language, FYI ;-).

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Rodrigo Palhano
"multiple inheritance" what for?
"templates" is a specific resource, but ok.
"classes in shared libraries", delphi does have it.

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 14:57:07 -0300, Micha Nelissen <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:28:40 +0100 (Romance Standard Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Most people out there probably think of Pascal as still being in
>> the state it was in when Niklaus Wirth first designed it.
>>
>> Object Pascal to date is fully OOP, and misses nothing that C#, C++
>> or Java has: Interfaces, Exceptions, Classes: you name it, Object
>> Pascal has it.
>
> That's simply not true. C++ has multiple inheritance, templates, classes
> in shared libraries; all things which FPC does not have. FPC does have
> metaclasstypes (and virtual constructors) in the OO area, which C++ does
> not have.
>
> I do consider FPC to be a modern language, FYI ;-).
>
> Micha
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>



--
Rodrigo Palhano
---------------------------------
Equipe SpeedCASE

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Michael Van Canneyt
In reply to this post by Micha Nelissen


On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:28:40 +0100 (Romance Standard Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Most people out there probably think of Pascal as still being in
> > the state it was in when Niklaus Wirth first designed it.
> >
> > Object Pascal to date is fully OOP, and misses nothing that C#, C++
> > or Java has: Interfaces, Exceptions, Classes: you name it, Object
> > Pascal has it.
>
> That's simply not true. C++ has multiple inheritance,

Solved by interfaces in a much cleaner way.

> templates,

Agreed, but absolutely not essential. It just saves typing.

> classes in shared libraries

So does FPC if you so desire ? The RTL can be compiled as a shared lib,
and that includes Classes...

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Micha Nelissen
On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:14:41 +0100 (Romance Standard Time)
Michael Van Canneyt <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > That's simply not true. C++ has multiple inheritance,
>
> Solved by interfaces in a much cleaner way.

That doesn't solve the same problem. MI is much more powerful, but also
much more complex, and easily abused so that code maintainability goes
*down* instead of up.

> > templates,
>
> Agreed, but absolutely not essential. It just saves typing.

That's an opinion, not a fact ;-).
 
> > classes in shared libraries
>
> So does FPC if you so desire ? The RTL can be compiled as a shared lib,
> and that includes Classes...

This is *very* recent stuff. Is it in 2.0.x yet? Does lazarus work properly
with a shared LCL library ?

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Rodrigo Palhano
but not losing the focus, Pascal is a very modern language.

On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:29:21 -0300, Micha Nelissen <[hidden email]>  
wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:14:41 +0100 (Romance Standard Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> > That's simply not true. C++ has multiple inheritance,
>>
>> Solved by interfaces in a much cleaner way.
>
> That doesn't solve the same problem. MI is much more powerful, but also
> much more complex, and easily abused so that code maintainability goes
> *down* instead of up.
>
>> > templates,
>>
>> Agreed, but absolutely not essential. It just saves typing.
>
> That's an opinion, not a fact ;-).
>
>> > classes in shared libraries
>>
>> So does FPC if you so desire ? The RTL can be compiled as a shared lib,
>> and that includes Classes...
>
> This is *very* recent stuff. Is it in 2.0.x yet? Does lazarus work  
> properly
> with a shared LCL library ?
>
> Micha
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>



--
Rodrigo Palhano
---------------------------------
Equipe SpeedCASE

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Michael Van Canneyt
In reply to this post by Micha Nelissen


On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, Micha Nelissen wrote:


> > > classes in shared libraries
> >
> > So does FPC if you so desire ? The RTL can be compiled as a shared lib,
> > and that includes Classes...
>
> This is *very* recent stuff. Is it in 2.0.x yet? Does lazarus work properly
> with a shared LCL library ?

I'll stick to facts, and skip opinions, as you rightly point out...

This is not recent stuff, I did that back in 1998 already on
Linux (the machine called tflily) . Admittedly, it was manual
work using ppumove, but it worked perfectly.

What is new is that the compiler does all the work for you.

What is still missing, is Win32 support. A DLL is a different beast
than a shared lib on linux, because it's usually self-contained,
and because it can't export variables. Mainly, this is package stuff.

The new internal linker should make this possible...

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Matt Henley-2
In reply to this post by Rodrigo Palhano
Thanks for all the replies, i will try to formulate an agrigate response.

On 3/3/06, Rodrigo Palhano <[hidden email]> wrote:

> but not losing the focus, Pascal is a very modern language.
>
> On Fri, 03 Mar 2006 15:29:21 -0300, Micha Nelissen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 19:14:41 +0100 (Romance Standard Time)
> > Michael Van Canneyt <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >> > That's simply not true. C++ has multiple inheritance,
> >>
> >> Solved by interfaces in a much cleaner way.
> >
> > That doesn't solve the same problem. MI is much more powerful, but also
> > much more complex, and easily abused so that code maintainability goes
> > *down* instead of up.
> >
> >> > templates,
> >>
> >> Agreed, but absolutely not essential. It just saves typing.
> >
> > That's an opinion, not a fact ;-).
> >
> >> > classes in shared libraries
> >>
> >> So does FPC if you so desire ? The RTL can be compiled as a shared lib,
> >> and that includes Classes...
> >
> > This is *very* recent stuff. Is it in 2.0.x yet? Does lazarus work
> > properly
> > with a shared LCL library ?
> >
> > Micha
> > _______________________________________________
> > fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> > http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Rodrigo Palhano
> ---------------------------------
> Equipe SpeedCASE
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by Micha Nelissen
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2006 18:28:40 +0100 (Romance Standard Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Most people out there probably think of Pascal as still being in
> > the state it was in when Niklaus Wirth first designed it.
> >
> > Object Pascal to date is fully OOP, and misses nothing that C#, C++
> > or Java has: Interfaces, Exceptions, Classes: you name it, Object
> > Pascal has it.
>
> classes in shared libraries;

Since when is this a language feature? It is a implementation feature.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Internal linker?

chromdildo
In reply to this post by Michael Van Canneyt
Hi,

What about the "new internal linker" ?
Is it already available in the development tree?
What has changed? Any documents to read?

Thanks and best regards.
chrom

> What is new is that the compiler does all the work for you.
>
> What is still missing, is Win32 support. A DLL is a different beast
> than a shared lib on linux, because it's usually self-contained,
> and because it can't export variables. Mainly, this is package stuff.
>
> The new internal linker should make this possible...
>
> Michael.
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by Matt Henley-2
> "My personal objective is not just to put out a simulator, but a fast
> and efficient simulator.  Furthermore, personally, I do not consider a
> program portable if it is written in a language which very few can
> understand.  A modern language such as any of the .NET languages will
> meet the efficiency objective but portability remains an issue.  While
> I do have the Visual Studio .NET and I am happy with it, I understand
> that not everybody has it and it is not cheap.  I looked at the
> Lazarus project and (at least at a first glance) it is indeed very
> "Visual" and will likely do the job.  It will however, limit us to
> Pascal which is not really a modern language.  For those of you who
> are in favor of using Lazarus, can you assure the rest of us that
> Pascal has been modernized? "

IMHO the fatal flaw in this reasoning is that this opinion simply
regurgitates some IT management blurb, and doesn't really tailor a choice of
language to your needs.

There are three different arguments that I would mention in your response:

1) While not nearly as bad as Python, there are potential performance issues
in using managed languages. This is not just raw calculating speed, but also
startup time, memory usage (not unimportant in scientific calculations with
large datasets!).
Worse, doing something about it often means doing speed dependant calculations
in a non managed language in a DLL. So you potentially force contributors to
learn a new language, and later have to partially back out again.

2) The only somewhat jusitifyable choice for "modern" programming languages
in the IT sector is hiring. One can debate if .NET and Java are new
generations, or just a glorified old hat, but the main point is that they
_are_ prolific.

However that is not a 100% simple situation:
- First availability must be seend relative to demand (C# programmers
are the only programmer on the US top 10 most wanted list, J2EE has been so
in recent years). A lot more supply, but also a lot more hiring.
- Also, these languages are mainly business (read DB apps) oriented, and much
less scientifically. Pascal has been a scientific language for years.
-  Are you going to be hiring anyway? Otherwise I would inventorise
first which suitable language is most common in your community and choose
that (Pascal, Java, C# or not). It would be stupid to e.g. offend your most
worthwhile potential contributors with a wrong language choice.

IOW, don't be fooled by a simplistic mantrum, but do the research what
language is most suitable, and what's available in your community.

(your actual question is pretty much unanswerable till you define "modern")
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Mark Andrews-3
In reply to this post by Michael Van Canneyt
Tony Pelton wrote:

>it is *everything* that Java is, but better.
>
>
>i feel like the hobbyist programmer in me has been reborn AND ... i've
>actually started to look out into the job market a little, with an eye
>towards maybe trying to make a jump from being a Java J2EE web
>application developer to making a jump to doing Pascal development for
>a day job, if the right opportunity came along.
>
Yet another lost soul wanders out of the C-Language (C, C++, C#, Java,
Python, et. al.)  forrest and into the fertile fields of Object Pascal.

You know, in all my years of using Pascal (starting with Turbo 3.01A in
1986) and Object Pascal (starting with Turbo 5.5 in 1989), I have heard
this story on more than one occasion. However, I have never heard a
story describing the opposite, ie. a person going from Pascal to a
C-Language and having the same epiphany. I've tried to make the
transition myself on several occasions, but I always end up coming back
to Pascal.

Congratulations!

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Matt Henley-2
In reply to this post by Marco van de Voort
Please note that I am advocating Lazarus for the project.. I was
responding to the project leader's (defacto at this point) call for
pros and cons of each language.  I and one other gentleman suggested
FPC/Lazarus.  I posted here precisely because I do not know what
constitutes a "modern" language.  I am not a programmer, just a
chemical engineer who has done a lot of programming (mostly in
Fortran), but who switched to delphi -> kylix -> Lazarus for my own
projects.

This is a community project... no companies are currently involved.
The project is a continuation of an existing codebase which was
written in python. Few of the people want to continue it in Python.
Several want to use C#.  Two of us know and love Lazarus.

The application would involve calculations, database access, and a
graphical user interface (visio like diagramming interface)... for
reference you can look at
http://www.aspentech.com/industry_solutions/oilgas/product.cfm?IndustryID=23&ProductID=274
(scroll down for screen shot)

Thanks for all the input

Matt


On 3/3/06, Marco van de Voort <[hidden email]> wrote:

> > "My personal objective is not just to put out a simulator, but a fast
> > and efficient simulator.  Furthermore, personally, I do not consider a
> > program portable if it is written in a language which very few can
> > understand.  A modern language such as any of the .NET languages will
> > meet the efficiency objective but portability remains an issue.  While
> > I do have the Visual Studio .NET and I am happy with it, I understand
> > that not everybody has it and it is not cheap.  I looked at the
> > Lazarus project and (at least at a first glance) it is indeed very
> > "Visual" and will likely do the job.  It will however, limit us to
> > Pascal which is not really a modern language.  For those of you who
> > are in favor of using Lazarus, can you assure the rest of us that
> > Pascal has been modernized? "
>
> IMHO the fatal flaw in this reasoning is that this opinion simply
> regurgitates some IT management blurb, and doesn't really tailor a choice of
> language to your needs.
>
> There are three different arguments that I would mention in your response:
>
> 1) While not nearly as bad as Python, there are potential performance issues
> in using managed languages. This is not just raw calculating speed, but also
> startup time, memory usage (not unimportant in scientific calculations with
> large datasets!).
> Worse, doing something about it often means doing speed dependant calculations
> in a non managed language in a DLL. So you potentially force contributors to
> learn a new language, and later have to partially back out again.
>
> 2) The only somewhat jusitifyable choice for "modern" programming languages
> in the IT sector is hiring. One can debate if .NET and Java are new
> generations, or just a glorified old hat, but the main point is that they
> _are_ prolific.
>
> However that is not a 100% simple situation:
> - First availability must be seend relative to demand (C# programmers
> are the only programmer on the US top 10 most wanted list, J2EE has been so
> in recent years). A lot more supply, but also a lot more hiring.
> - Also, these languages are mainly business (read DB apps) oriented, and much
> less scientifically. Pascal has been a scientific language for years.
> -  Are you going to be hiring anyway? Otherwise I would inventorise
> first which suitable language is most common in your community and choose
> that (Pascal, Java, C# or not). It would be stupid to e.g. offend your most
> worthwhile potential contributors with a wrong language choice.
>
> IOW, don't be fooled by a simplistic mantrum, but do the research what
> language is most suitable, and what's available in your community.
>
> (your actual question is pretty much unanswerable till you define "modern")
> _______________________________________________
> 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: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
On 3/3/06, Matt Henley <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Several want to use C#.  Two of us know and love Lazarus.

On Open Source projects the Developer is King. Talking doesn´t matter
much, what really matters is the code that is written.

If they don´t agree on making it a Lazarus software, ask them to have
2 versions. a C# for windows and a Lazarus one for cross-platform.
Talk to them about targets that c# does not reach, like *BSD, Mac OS
X, Sparc, etc =)

Then work very hard on the Lazarus version.

They will soon drop the c# version if favor of the Lazarus one =)

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

Re: Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Marco van de Voort
In reply to this post by Matt Henley-2
> Please note that I am advocating Lazarus for the project.. I was
> responding to the project leader's (defacto at this point) call for
> pros and cons of each language.  I and one other gentleman suggested
> FPC/Lazarus.  I posted here precisely because I do not know what
> constitutes a "modern" language.  I am not a programmer, just a
> chemical engineer who has done a lot of programming (mostly in
> Fortran), but who switched to delphi -> kylix -> Lazarus for my own
> projects.
> This is a community project... no companies are currently involved.
> The project is a continuation of an existing codebase which was
> written in python. Few of the people want to continue it in Python.
> Several want to use C#.  Two of us know and love Lazarus.

This is exactly like I expected. Still the end conclusion stands. Go with
the language of the (group of) people you expect to contribute most.

Also be wary of people (in the community) suggesting languages they do not
daily use.
 
> The application would involve calculations, database access, and a
> graphical user interface (visio like diagramming interface)... for
> reference you can look at
> http://www.aspentech.com/industry_solutions/oilgas/product.cfm?IndustryID=23&ProductID=274
> (scroll down for screen shot)

Ah, Aspen. Yeah, used that during my studies, though not "oil and gas". If
you need help with from FPC from time to time, just drop me a note. Would be fun
to do something with chemical engineering again. (did it for 3 years before
I switched to IT)  

I also have some experience with numeric calculating in pascal, and
inherited a pascal lib of relevant numerical routines from my Uni, so be
sure to also run numerical math problems over this list. (it's in
packages/extra/numlib, but unfortunately the docs are still untranslated in
Dutch. I can pick out specific routines and translate/document them if you
need them)

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

Re: Internal linker?

Michael Van Canneyt
In reply to this post by chromdildo


On Fri, 3 Mar 2006, chromdildo wrote:

> Hi,
>
> What about the "new internal linker" ?
> Is it already available in the development tree?

It is available in the 'linker' branch in SVN.

> What has changed? Any documents to read?

No documents that I know of.
The current status is that the compiler can now
work without any external tools: both assembler
and linker are internal in the compiler for at
least windows.

'make cycle' runs, cross-compilation and linking
works, the compiler produces a lazarus binary
which is functional AFAIK.

I have not seen any timings yet, but I have
seen reports that memory usage has been
greatly reduced.

Peter Vreman has done most, if not all, development
on this. He can say more about it than I can.

Michael.


>
> Thanks and best regards.
> chrom
>
> > What is new is that the compiler does all the work for you.
> >
> > What is still missing, is Win32 support. A DLL is a different beast
> > than a shared lib on linux, because it's usually self-contained,
> > and because it can't export variables. Mainly, this is package stuff.
> >
> > The new internal linker should make this possible...
> >
> > Michael.
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [lazarus] Object pascal a "Modern Language"

Florian Klaempfl-2
In reply to this post by Matt Henley-2
Uwe Grauer wrote:

> Matt Henley wrote:
>> I belong to a mailing list for a defunt open source chemical process
>> simulator (Sim42).  Members of the list are now showing interest in
>> restarting the effort.  It was originally written in python which
>> cause some speed issues.  Several of the list members (including me)
>> suggested freepascal and lazarus.  The gentleman spearheading the
>> effort sent the following and I would like to know what is the best
>> way to respond.  I do not know what features define a "modern
>> language" and would like to know what points to bring up.
>> snip...
>
> Matt,
>
> python is a very nice language.

Yes, scripting language. Every bigger program I saw so far in python was
basically a big hack. I don't consider Python as a general purpose
language. The lazy typing makes it a maintainance nightmare. It's nice
for scripting but not for a full grown project.

> Why don't you just write the speed critical parts in C or C++.
> That's how everyone does it in python.
> There is no need to port to a language which needs 5-10 times the efford
> in getting things out.

_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
12