Systems 2005: A first summary

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

Systems 2005: A first summary

Sebastian Günther
Hello *,

I've written a first small summary about our experiences at Systems 2005 in
Munich, Germany, this week:
http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Systems_2005

probably more detailed information will follow within the next few days.


Regards,
Sebastian

--
Telefonieren Sie schon oder sparen Sie noch?
NEU: GMX Phone_Flat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/telefonie
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

L505


> Hello *,
>
> I've written a first small summary about our experiences at Systems 2005 in
> Munich, Germany, this week:
> http://www.freepascal.org/wiki/index.php/Systems_2005
>
> probably more detailed information will follow within the next few days.
>
>
> Regards,
> Sebastian
>


Those are a cool bunch of goofs in the picture.. :-)
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Bee-6
It's a great news to know FPC and Lazarus getting more and more popular and
starting to be counted in serious software development. I'm really glad to hear
and see this. :)

I got few suggestions, especially to target more Delphi developers.

1. Maybe it'll better for public and new users to know 1 product instead of two:
FPC (the compiler) and Lazarus (the IDE). Just like Delphi for the compiler and
the IDE in a single package. I still got many times question like this: "what's
the difference between FPC and Lazarus?" or "why I still need FPC if I already
got Lazarus?". Because many new users think that Lazarus is also a Pascal
compiler, another Delphi clone, or Kylix alternative. :p

2. Language/compiler support for (Delphi) package (.bpl?). I think this is the
most significant problem for new FPC/Lazarus user who used to be a Delphi user.
Custom component creation and installation seems to be too complicated and
required much efforts in Lazarus, while it's a very simple task on Delphi. If
they able to compile and use their Delphi components on Lazarus, it'll be a
really BIG advantage.

3. Again... it's about language compatibility with Delphi 2005 (and newer). No,
I ain't talking about .Net! Forget .Net, but don't forget new language features
on new Delphi release. Ok... I agree if we skip the aesthetical-beauty and
saving-key-strokes features, yes I know it's not worth it. But we should
consider new language power features. To mention a few: sealed class, class
constants, generics, etc. Staying as close as possible to Delphi language will
give us more chances to get more users.

Just my 2 cents. :)

Regards,

-Bee-

has Bee.ography at
http://beeography.modblog.com
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Jilani Khaldi

>
> I got few suggestions, especially to target more Delphi developers.
>
> 1. Maybe it'll better for public and new users to know 1 product
> instead of two: FPC (the compiler) and Lazarus (the IDE). Just like
> Delphi for the compiler and the IDE in a single package. I still got
> many times question like this: "what's the difference between FPC and
> Lazarus?" or "why I still need FPC if I already got Lazarus?". Because
> many new users think that Lazarus is also a Pascal compiler, another
> Delphi clone, or Kylix alternative. :p

I think that FPC has to remain FPC, a language + compiler just like GCC.
IDE and Lazarus could be run on top of FPC, like many IDE run on top of
GCC. But what we really and always need is a very robust, lean and clean
language/compiler and FPC guys are doing a nice job in this direction.
Adding features on features and visual components lead to MFPC (Mammouth
Free Pascal Compiler) that nobody wants. I think that FPC has to compete
with GCC and not with Delphi. Taking FPC and Lazarus as 2 different
projects is the way to go (my 0.02c).

jk

--
// Jilani KHALDI
http://jkhaldi.oltrelinux.com



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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

L505

> > I got few suggestions, especially to target more Delphi developers.
> >
> > 1. Maybe it'll better for public and new users to know 1 product
> > instead of two: FPC (the compiler) and Lazarus (the IDE). Just like
> > Delphi for the compiler and the IDE in a single package. I still got
> > many times question like this: "what's the difference between FPC and
> > Lazarus?" or "why I still need FPC if I already got Lazarus?". Because
> > many new users think that Lazarus is also a Pascal compiler, another
> > Delphi clone, or Kylix alternative. :p
>
> I think that FPC has to remain FPC, a language + compiler just like GCC.
> IDE and Lazarus could be run on top of FPC, like many IDE run on top of
> GCC. But what we really and always need is a very robust, lean and clean
> language/compiler and FPC guys are doing a nice job in this direction.
> Adding features on features and visual components lead to MFPC (Mammouth
> Free Pascal Compiler) that nobody wants. I think that FPC has to compete
> with GCC and not with Delphi. Taking FPC and Lazarus as 2 different
> projects is the way to go (my 0.02c).
>
> jk
>


Agree. DCC can be used separate from delphi too - maybe just the fact that not many people
use DCC separately.  It is better to educate people about how a compiler can be separate
from the IDE, incase that person wants the full power to write their own IDE themself one
day, or incase his IDE fails on him and he has to resort to emergency. As for whether the
lazarus IDE should have its own compiled in compiler (as opposed to being separate), I would
say if it makes lazarus significantly faster, then it would be worth it. I'm not sure of the
latency time it takes to spawn a new process and etc.

--
L505
http://z505.com

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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Florian Klaempfl-2
L505 wrote:

>>>I got few suggestions, especially to target more Delphi developers.
>>>
>>>1. Maybe it'll better for public and new users to know 1 product
>>>instead of two: FPC (the compiler) and Lazarus (the IDE). Just like
>>>Delphi for the compiler and the IDE in a single package. I still got
>>>many times question like this: "what's the difference between FPC and
>>>Lazarus?" or "why I still need FPC if I already got Lazarus?". Because
>>>many new users think that Lazarus is also a Pascal compiler, another
>>>Delphi clone, or Kylix alternative. :p
>>
>>I think that FPC has to remain FPC, a language + compiler just like GCC.
>>IDE and Lazarus could be run on top of FPC, like many IDE run on top of
>>GCC. But what we really and always need is a very robust, lean and clean
>>language/compiler and FPC guys are doing a nice job in this direction.
>>Adding features on features and visual components lead to MFPC (Mammouth
>>Free Pascal Compiler) that nobody wants. I think that FPC has to compete
>>with GCC and not with Delphi. Taking FPC and Lazarus as 2 different
>>projects is the way to go (my 0.02c).
>>
>>jk
>>
>
>
>
> Agree. DCC can be used separate from delphi too - maybe just the fact that not many people
> use DCC separately.  It is better to educate people about how a compiler can be separate
> from the IDE, incase that person wants the full power to write their own IDE themself one
> day, or incase his IDE fails on him and he has to resort to emergency. As for whether the
> lazarus IDE should have its own compiled in compiler (as opposed to being separate), I would
> say if it makes lazarus significantly faster, then it would be worth it. I'm not sure of the
> latency time it takes to spawn a new process and etc.

No, this doesn't match with our experiences we had at the systems: a lot
of people said, yes, I tried fpc but I didn't like to work with the
command line. When we asked, did you try lazarus, the answer was, no, I
didn't know about it.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

L505

> No, this doesn't match with our experiences we had at the systems: a lot
> of people said, yes, I tried fpc but I didn't like to work with the
> command line. When we asked, did you try lazarus, the answer was, no, I
> didn't know about it.

Of course, but I don't think you mean mean the projects have to merge, it just means the
advertising has to merge (cross-advertise each other more).. I'm sure the FPC team doesn't
want to merge with lazarus? Just change the marketing/advertising tactics right?

i.e. maybe in big bold font on the FPC website:
"Lazarus is the major IDE that uses FPC" or something similar.

In an FAQ section:

Question:
 What is FPC exactly, and what is lazarus?

Answer:
 If you come from a delphi background, consider FPC like DCC. FPC is not an IDE, just like
DCC is not an IDE.

Question:
 What is DCC, I don't know what that stands for?

Answer:
 That is the compiler that powers the Delphi IDE.

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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

L505
In reply to this post by Sebastian Günther

> In an FAQ section:
>
> Question:
>  What is FPC exactly, and what is lazarus?
>
> Answer:
>  If you come from a delphi background, consider FPC like DCC. FPC is not an IDE, just like
> DCC is not an IDE.
>
> Question:
>  What is DCC, I don't know what that stands for?
>
> Answer:
>  That is the compiler that powers the Delphi IDE.
>

And then to offer some more help with more confusions

 Question:
  But I thought DCC was just a command line compiler available?

 Answer:
  Yes, but it is the compiler that you are using in the Delphi ide, just that it is compiled
into the delphi ide

 Question:
  So is FPC compiled into Lazarus?

 Answer:
  It is integrated so that it feels this way, but it is just called as a separate process.
The FP-IDE has a compiled in compiler, and the lazarus ide might have one in the future or
might not

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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Éric DÉTREZ
In reply to this post by Florian Klaempfl-2

Le 29 oct. 05 à 21:22, Florian Klaempfl a écrit :


> When we asked, did you try lazarus, the answer was, no, I didn't  
> know about it.

So I try lazarus.
I download it (Lazarus, new fpc, fpcsrc (?))
But I don't find it anywhere.
No lazarus, even in the Terminal.
I'm a mac osx user.
Can anybody help a newbee ?

ÉrIc Détrez
Mathématiques & informatique (Faidherbe Lille)

Europe pas morte ?
http://www.sauvonsleurope.org/



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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Paul Davidson
One must start X-Windows from terminal, then start Lazarus.

You could also try this site.
All are .dmg files, friendly to Macs

Try http://www.ca.freepascal.org/Lazarus/
On Oct 29, 2005, at 16:11, Éric DÉTREZ wrote:

>
> Le 29 oct. 05 à 21:22, Florian Klaempfl a écrit :
>
>
>> When we asked, did you try lazarus, the answer was, no, I didn't know
>> about it.
>
> So I try lazarus.
> I download it (Lazarus, new fpc, fpcsrc (?))
> But I don't find it anywhere.
> No lazarus, even in the Terminal.
> I'm a mac osx user.
> Can anybody help a newbee ?
>
> ÉrIc Détrez
> Mathématiques & informatique (Faidherbe Lille)
>
> Europe pas morte ?
> http://www.sauvonsleurope.org/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> fpc-pascal maillist  -  [hidden email]
> http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
>
>
>
P Davidson

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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Mattias Gaertner
In reply to this post by L505
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:38:05 -0700
L505 <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> > No, this doesn't match with our experiences we had at the systems: a lot
> > of people said, yes, I tried fpc but I didn't like to work with the
> > command line. When we asked, did you try lazarus, the answer was, no, I
> > didn't know about it.
>
> Of course, but I don't think you mean mean the projects have to merge, it
> just means the advertising has to merge (cross-advertise each other
> more).. I'm sure the FPC team doesn't want to merge with lazarus? Just
> change the marketing/advertising tactics right?

Correct.

 

> i.e. maybe in big bold font on the FPC website:
> "Lazarus is the major IDE that uses FPC" or something similar.
>
> In an FAQ section:
>
> Question:
>  What is FPC exactly, and what is lazarus?
>
> Answer:
>  If you come from a delphi background, consider FPC like DCC. FPC is not
>  an IDE, just like
> DCC is not an IDE.
>
> Question:
>  What is DCC, I don't know what that stands for?
>
> Answer:
>  That is the compiler that powers the Delphi IDE.

Ok - at least for delphians.
The 'systems' showed that there are a lot of non delphians interested in
FPC+Laz.


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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Éric DÉTREZ
In reply to this post by Paul Davidson

Le 29 oct. 05 à 22:16, Paul Davidson a écrit :

> One must start X-Windows from terminal, then start Lazarus.

I know how to start X11.
Is it the right X-Windows ?
But how to start then Lazarus ?

I really feel stupid.

ÉrIc Détrez
Mathématiques & informatique (Faidherbe Lille)

Europe pas morte ?
http://www.sauvonsleurope.org/



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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Tony Pelton
In reply to this post by Florian Klaempfl-2
On 10/29/05, Florian Klaempfl <[hidden email]> wrote:
> L505 wrote:
>
> >>
> >>I think that FPC has to remain FPC, a language + compiler just like GCC.
> >>IDE and Lazarus could be run on top of FPC, like many IDE run on top of
> >>GCC.

that would be my preference, not that my preferences matter in the slightest.

i think the GCC analogy is right.

>
> No, this doesn't match with our experiences we had at the systems: a lot
> of people said, yes, I tried fpc but I didn't like to work with the
> command line. When we asked, did you try lazarus, the answer was, no, I
> didn't know about it.

FPC is a darn sweet little compiler and could/should become as common
on Linux at least as bash and perl and GCC are now so that it will see
more adoption as an alternative to 'C'.

i know that is why i've become an FPC convert.

i got tired of pulling my hair out with 'C' for some of the small toys
i was playing with for my flight simulator plugin work, but my "other"
language, Java, just wasn't up to the task of building lightweight and
performant code.

this is when i "discovered" Pascal and the FreePascal compiler tools.

i will admit that it took me a while to figure out how Lazarus was
related, and i found the FreePascal and Lazarus sites confusing at
first.

i think the one, most productive thing, both projects could do for
themselves, and for the community at large, is to bring the two
entities together, into a more cohesive looking and feeling website
and to market them as layers of building blocks for doing plain pascal
development with minimal tools or as a larger set of tools for doing
GUI RAD.

but again, i wouldn't change them architecturally, other than maybe
making integrated, easy to use/install "bundles" out of them.

FreePascal and Lazarus might want to look to how Sun and the Netbeans
project have aligned the Java tools and the Netbeans IDE.

http://www.netbeans.org/downloads/index.html

this seems like an analagous model to that of FPC and Lazarus.

their (sun's) model is one where they offer the bundle that you need,
where you may want a big thick bundle with the Java compiler and
runtime and IDE, or you may already have the Java runtime and
compiler, and just need the IDE.

imho, this would be the perfect strategy for FPC and Lazarus.

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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Sebastian Günther
Tony Pelton schrieb:
>
> their (sun's) model is one where they offer the bundle that you need,
> where you may want a big thick bundle with the Java compiler and
> runtime and IDE, or you may already have the Java runtime and
> compiler, and just need the IDE.

For Java the situation is different. There are lots of IDEs, but Free
Pascal has only one major IDE.
Of course the talk is _not_ about a complete fusion of FPC and Lazarus.
'Only' the following parts should be merged:
- Website
- Download directories on the website. Especially we need a clear and
short explanation of the different packages.
- The Wikis
- Documenation? But this is a major topic, which we should discuss
separatedly
- Perhaps the bug system

There is no clear separation between FPC and Lazarus for the end-user.
For example, an average user cannot tell easily if he has a problem with
a component or function belonging to Lazarus or belonging to FPC.
Furthermore, many topics in the wiki could be shared between both projects.


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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Mattias Gaertner
On Sat, 29 Oct 2005 23:38:10 +0200
Sebastian Günther <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Tony Pelton schrieb:
> >
> > their (sun's) model is one where they offer the bundle that you need,
> > where you may want a big thick bundle with the Java compiler and
> > runtime and IDE, or you may already have the Java runtime and
> > compiler, and just need the IDE.
>
> For Java the situation is different. There are lots of IDEs, but Free
> Pascal has only one major IDE.
> Of course the talk is _not_ about a complete fusion of FPC and Lazarus.
> 'Only' the following parts should be merged:
> - Website
> - Download directories on the website. Especially we need a clear and
> short explanation of the different packages.
> - The Wikis
> - Documenation? But this is a major topic, which we should discuss
> separatedly
> - Perhaps the bug system

Note:
Lazarus has different release dates than FPC, so bug tracking and download
directories should only have related pages, but the difference must stay
clear for the user. For instance the released and stable FPC 2.0 should not
be confused with the lazarus beta.

 
> There is no clear separation between FPC and Lazarus for the end-user.
> For example, an average user cannot tell easily if he has a problem with
> a component or function belonging to Lazarus or belonging to FPC.
> Furthermore, many topics in the wiki could be shared between both
> projects.

True.


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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho
In reply to this post by Sebastian Günther
On 10/29/05, Sebastian Günther <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Tony Pelton schrieb:
> For Java the situation is different. There are lots of IDEs, but Free
> Pascal has only one major IDE.
> Of course the talk is _not_ about a complete fusion of FPC and Lazarus.
> 'Only' the following parts should be merged:
> - Website
> - Download directories on the website. Especially we need a clear and
> short explanation of the different packages.
> - The Wikis

I am in favor of uniting this parts. I think it adds a lot to both of
the projects. Specially we should take a good look on how to improve
the security on the websites.

> - Documenation? But this is a major topic, which we should discuss
> separatedly
> - Perhaps the bug system

These parts could stay for the future as they may take a long time to
be implemented or event to be discussed.

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: Systems 2005: A first summary

Jonas Maebe-2
In reply to this post by Éric DÉTREZ

On 29 Oct 2005, at 22:51, Éric DÉTREZ wrote:

> I know how to start X11.
> Is it the right X-Windows ?

Yes.

> But how to start then Lazarus ?

Simply typing "lazarus" in the xterm window should work. If it  
doesn't, try

/usr/local/bin/lazarus


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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Sebastian Günther
In reply to this post by Mattias Gaertner
Mattias Gaertner schrieb:
>
> Note:
> Lazarus has different release dates than FPC, so bug tracking and download
> directories should only have related pages, but the difference must stay
> clear for the user. For instance the released and stable FPC 2.0 should not
> be confused with the lazarus beta.

Yes.
Of course it should be still possible to download single parts. But the
main download page should list the full installers (for Win32) and
Lazarus packages, together with a small explanation. For users without
any experience the current scheme is much too complicated. As you know
from Systems, for many people just the name 'Free Pascal' counts, as it
indicates a Pascal based system -- the name 'Lazarus' does not. There is
no clear hint on the Free Pascal website about the function of Lazarus,
just a plain link. This costs us much of the existing potential.


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

Re: Systems 2005: A first summary

Tony Pelton
In reply to this post by Sebastian Günther
On 10/29/05, Sebastian Günther <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Tony Pelton schrieb:
> >
> > their (sun's) model is one where they offer the bundle that you need,
> > where you may want a big thick bundle with the Java compiler and
> > runtime and IDE, or you may already have the Java runtime and
> > compiler, and just need the IDE.
>
> For Java the situation is different. There are lots of IDEs, but Free
> Pascal has only one major IDE.

well, firstly, there appears to be at least one other decent IDE that
i know of :

http://www.bloodshed.net/devpascal.html

but in any event, i'm not sure why that distinction is important.

i think the point of the bundling strategy is not in the number of IDE's.

i think there are a few more relevant points :

*) the IDE is kind of pointless without the compiler
*) the compiler doesn't *require* the IDE.
*) giving people a complete, one stop development solution is a good thing.

but like Java, i think it would be of paramount importance to make
sure that the compiler can also standalone, without the IDE and it's
runtime, for those that want to use alternative IDE's, or where you
want to be able to integrate the compiler in with an OS distro or what
have you ...

> Of course the talk is _not_ about a complete fusion of FPC and Lazarus.
> 'Only' the following parts should be merged:
> - Website
> - Download directories on the website. Especially we need a clear and
> short explanation of the different packages.
> - The Wikis
> - Documenation? But this is a major topic, which we should discuss
> separatedly
> - Perhaps the bug system

and if this were my project(s), i personally _wouldn't_ advocate for
merging all of that stuff together.

i would keep the projects mostly seperate *except* for the front pages
of either site, where i do my marketing spiel about how the projects
are complimentary AND i would make sure the projects cooperate enough
so that they can always be bundled seamlessly with each other, and
each projects download page should offer their own product AND the
bundled product.

so the users get nice, easy to understand, packaging options both for
just the compiler tools and/or the IDE, but the projects still get to
run themselves how they want, and manage their own release cycles etc.

another thing that most java ide's do, which may or may not apply to
lazarus, is that most IDE's have the ability to support more than one
compiler suite at a time.

so for instance, the IDE might require java 1.4 for its own execution
environment, but might support being able to use more than one java
version for supporting the developer project, such as java 1.5 for
instance.

having that type of decoupling and runtime compiler switching with
Lazarus might be very handy in the future AND it would make it much
easier for Lazarus and FPC to iterate versions on their own schedules,
and allow users to upgrade just the parts that they need to, when they
need to.

>
> There is no clear separation between FPC and Lazarus for the end-user.

for a Lazarus end user I assume you mean ?

> For example, an average user cannot tell easily if he has a problem with
> a component or function belonging to Lazarus or belonging to FPC.

and again, if they were bundled together, but also properly
modularized, if the FPC or it's runtime was to blame for a bug, or
Lazarus was, the source of the problem could be better identified
because of the modularization, and then just the suspect part could be
upgraded to solve the problem, rather than having to download the
whole big bundle, after the bundle has been updated by the responsible
project.

>
> - Sebastian

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

Re: synchronizing Lazarus--FPC versions

Alain Michaud
In reply to this post by Mattias Gaertner
Hi,

  I am not a developer, but here is an idea:


The "About Lazarus" box could also show which FPC version is, or should
be used with the current Lazarus and whetter it is OK or not.

It hapened to me also once that I was pointing to the wrong FPC
compiler.  This would be a simple solution to help the new users. Every
user always open the "about" of any software and the "FPC version"
number is a good reminder that they work togetter!

Sincerely

Alain Michaud


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