[lazarus] Progress

[Samuel Liddicott]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael A. Hess [mailto:mhess at miraclec.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 1999 05:10 PM
> To: lazarus at miraclec.com
> Subject: Re: [lazarus] Progress
>
>
> Samuel Liddicott wrote:
> >
> > Glk!! The reason I'm talking about it is because I think it really
> > does need talking about early on, before we take a long strategy.
>
> But what you need it for is Windows.

I don't need it for windows,  I don't actually care much about Lazarus on
windows - I've got Delphi, after all.

> The main push at this point is to
> get a product for Linux. Don't expect people to jump ship from Delphi to
> FPC and Lazarus on Windows any time soon. They will just continue to use
> Delphi. (Even I will).

Me too.  Yet still the reason I'm talking about it is because I think it
really
does need talking about early on, before we take a long strategy.

> First off you are mixing things up. The arguement is between GTK and Qt
> not GTK and KDE. For that matter it isn't even much of an arguement any
> more since they are both merging some of their features.

I don't mean our argument, I mean theirs.  If helping us also supports their
position in that Lazarus "requires" GTK, so much the better for them; also
more GTK app's will be produced more quickly.  Hence I think they will do
it.

> Secondly that is why we are trying to make the LCL API independent so
> that we aren't part of any arguement or religious war. We want anyone to
> be able to use whatever API they want to build an X Windows product with
> FPC. We do not want to become part of the GTK team or the Qt team or
> what have you.

I know, thats why I think we should talk about it first; otherwise (and the
way we are going right now) the LCL will be very GTK dependant.

As I've said before, using wndproc adds another level of abstraction, and in
fact loosens the strings to GTK as you so well pointed out when you said I
only wanted it for windows.

> > Good; but I've said before, I *need* the wndproc support; and I am
> > modifying the LCL to support it.
>
> But that is for Windows.

It is not, I don't care a fig about LCL for windows (no offense to the
current converter).

> Again the main push is to develope Lazarus and
> the LCL for Linux, an environment where we don't have any tools like
> Delphi.

We do.  We have FEDIT the form designer for a start.

> That is what we need to concentrate on.

But unless we discuss it we don't know what it is that is that is "lazarus
for linux"

> Why is it so important to try and make Lazarus
> support the Windows API at this time?

It isn't, I just want to stop it being bound so strongly to GTK, and to make
it Delphi compatable (to hell with the windows API, I make thorough use of
overridden wndprocs in my delphi code)

> > I also *need* GTK to be less stingy with its events.
>
> It isn't stingy. That is how it is designed. It is designed to simplify
> application development. It does the dirty work so you don't have to.

I know; but it is still a problem for the lcl component developer if he
can't get at them, so I *need* GTK to be more free with its events.

I do.  You may not, but I do.

Sam