[lazarus] Win32 Code Analysis

[Marco van de Voort]

Hmm, lets turn this discussion into something more constructive;

> > > I don't disagree, however they are not Delphi compatible, which
> > > makes it impossible to use Delphi for debugging.
> >
> > No, it just needs some more IFDEFs, temporarily too afaik, since unit
> > aliasing is going to disappear in the long run from Delphi too?
> 
> Um, I was talking at this point about the pascal extensions like ++.

Then I misunderstood, and then I'm very interested in a list of 
language incompabilities.

I never saw the ++ thing in the wild, and it was only meant for easy 
porting. If Lazarus contains it, it should be killed IMHO, period.

Actually the only extension I really miss in Delphi (and therefore have 
to use amd fix sometimes) is the ^simpletype thing.
 
> > However, sometimes different choices, and managing developper time
> > economically can create things like this. The mere fact that it
> > differs
> from
> > Delphi already says enough. Most of those differences are choices that
> > already had a fair share of discussion about them being different from
> > Delphi.
> 
> The mere fact that it differs from Delphi already says enough? 

Lazarus/FPC was meant to be a standalone system. Not a Delphi 
plugin. Anyway, we could try to create a script that renames some 
files.

> I very rarly open any ide envioronment by clicking on the file. Not in,
> C++, Python or Pascal. The fact that there might be another IDE on your
> system that understands the same filename extensions, is a very weak
> argument for having different extensions. 

Actually that isn't. Most people that use FPC (semi-)professionally 
have Delphi installed.

> Especialy when compatiblity
> between Lazarus and Dephi is one of the criteria. I have been sitting
> here on my win32 machine not contributing because debugging using fpc on
> a win32 machine is not possible. (or at least not pleasent).  If I were
> to be able to use Delphi I'm sure the development would move much more
> quickly.

Then, let's 
- create the script that copy/renames the local repository, 
- kill C style operators.
 
> > > By the compiler definition, it will enforce code which is compiler
> > > dependent. Using more then one compiler makes the code compiler
> independent,
> > > which to me seems a worthwhile goal.
> > >
> >
> > That's theory :-)        Praxis <> Theory :-)
> 
> Your lack of experience is showing. 

As FPC core member or as Delphi programmer? :-)

> I've had plenty of practice, and I
> know that when you use more then one compiler on one piece of code, that
> code becomes more independent of the compiler. 

Hmm, I was more thinking of the IFDEFing and maintainability. Then 
using more compilers obfuscates.

> Are  you saying that you
> have used more then one compiler on a piece of code and have it become
> less independant?

Sure. You use technique C which both compiler A and B provide as 
ugly backdoor construct. That turns out to be incompabitle with D.


Marco van de Voort (MarcoV at Stack.nl or marco at freepascal.org)