Matt Emson wrote:
>>> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>> Well, compared with other commercial compilers it is broken ;)
> Heh, well when I can do what I am currently able to do in Delphi in an FPC
> based IDE, we'll talk again, yes? ;-)
This won't never happen, you miss one important point: the main goal of
the current FPC developers is to implement functionality which Delphi
doesn't have. For things, Delphi can do, you don't need FPC. But Delphi
can't do things FPC can do :) Or ever tried to use one of the best
debugging tools available (valgrind) with Kylix/Delphi :)? Because of
the superior functionality valgrind offers, I've installed vmware at my
pc at work and compile sometimes my programs with gcc (usually developed
with MSVC) to find memory leaks, dangling pointers etc.
fpc-pascal maillist - [hidden email] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, I wrote:
>> > > I do neither use Lazarus, nor MSEide, but if executable size is really important,
L> there is something called KOL (I didn't use it either). As I have read, it's currently
L> compilable by FPC.
>> > > Speaking of bigger applications, I don't see much difference between 6 or 30 Mb
>> > Try downloading them over a 56k modem ;-)
>> Try downloading a 6M one using a trained parrot (read: 300 baud). Where do
>> you put the border of what is "normal"?
Well, I download via one of three ways: (well, almost)
1. <= 3Mb --- from office (paid traffic)
2. 3Mb <= <=100Mb --- from home overnight (I have 33600 baud modem and don't plan to upgrade:)
3. 100 Mb <= --- from friends' one or another unlimited traffic broadband connection (256 Kb --- 100 Mb)
In the third case I have to change my route (to visit them) or wait
for occasion (parties included) (to get burned DVD with what I asked them to download).
I really do download 6-30 Mb packages in similar way.
I really do use for this range even more slow connection than 56K.
II. Hard disk.
Home computer: one photo is 3-12 Mb (compressed). I have thousands and
don't think it's very uncommon or something.
Office: no photos. Plenty of free space.
L> I ask, why are we promoting compiled languages then?
L> It sounds like interpretters would suit us better. Because
L> 1. hardware is so cheap
L> 2. size and memory are not all that important any more.
L> I think this is poor marketing for FPC: telling people that size/bloat is not an issue.
L> Then what good is FPC for us? FPC is a compiled language! The whole point of a compiled
L> language, is to have SOME advantage over an interpreted
L> language. What is this advantage,
L> if not size/memory/footprint? I don't see any advantages.
I like speed.
I can only kinda quote/repeat: look at good commercial compiler
binaries optimized for speed.
> It's always a trade off. Neither KOL nor FCL is better, they are simply
> designed different and comparsion is useless.
The intention is purely to be compact, and I didn't mean to compare or compete with FCL.
I was just mentioning that those who need a convenient compact StringList without the
bloat of 60-70K being hauled in compactutils is there for you. Free for your usage.
p.s. There is err.pas for KOL exception handling. Adds a few kilobytes. Still not
comparable to FCL exception handling probably. But that's not the intention at all. The
intention is purely to be compact, not to compete with classes.pp.
> Because of
> the superior functionality valgrind offers, I've installed vmware at my
> pc at work and compile sometimes my programs with gcc (usually developed
> with MSVC) to find memory leaks, dangling pointers etc.
Hmmm... so GCC produces the exact same output as MSVC now? I don't think so.
All you'll find are syntactical errors mainly.
Matt Emson wrote:
>> Because of
>> the superior functionality valgrind offers, I've installed vmware at my
>> pc at work and compile sometimes my programs with gcc (usually developed
>> with MSVC) to find memory leaks, dangling pointers etc.
> Hmmm... so GCC produces the exact same output as MSVC now?
No, why should this be necessary? By default program is built with MSVC, to do
error testing of the non gui part which is the biggest part, the non gui stuff
is compiled with gcc on linux and tested with valgrind.
> I don't think so.
> All you'll find are syntactical errors mainly.
On Wednesday 19 April 2006 11.55, Jonas Maebe wrote:
> I've now merged the fix for the property loading crash from 2.1.1 to
> 2.0.3. I didn't do it before because I wasn't sure at first whether
> it wouldn't have any bad side-effects, and later forgot to merge it.
The next problem (fixes_2_0 rev.3303, MSEide+MSEgui 0.8b:
151568 Lines compiled, 128.2 sec
Free Pascal Compiler version 2.0.3 [2006/04/21] for i386
Copyright (c) 1993-2005 by Florian Klaempfl
Target OS: Linux for i386
msegui.pas(2592,31) Error: No member is provided to access property
msegui.pas(2603,31) Error: No member is provided to access property
msegui.pas(9913) Fatal: There were 2 errors compiling module, stopping
msegui.pas(89,46) Fatal: Compilation aborted