[Lazarus] Is Lazarus project in a downward spiral?

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Martin Schreiber wrote:

> On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:21:37 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
>>> Martin (MSEgui) and myself having first hand experience in this will
>>> definitely tell you that there are much less bugs (simply because the
>>> code is simpler), easier to fix bugs too. And to fix a bug it's in one
>>> location for all supported platforms (99% of the time).
>>
>> The downside to this is: there is also a lot less functionality.
>> A simpler product is by definition easier to maintain.
>>
>> As you will introduce more components, you'll also introduce more
>> bugs, this is inevitable.
>>
> I don't think MSEide+MSEgui has "a lot less functionality" than Lazarus. In
> many areas it has even more. Examples:
> Database components, graphics (transparency, 100% flicker free), skinning
> (tframe, tface, tskincontroller), sophisticated key, shortcut and action
> handling, twidgetgrid and many editwidgets, a unicode capable postscript
> printer, sophisticated base widget component without the differentiation
> TGraphicControl/TWinControl and 100% working transparency, docking...

I was talking about fpGUI, not mseide.

and mseide does not run (to my knowledge) on Mac, didn't run till recently
on 64-bit. It all depends on what you think is important.

> MSEide+MSEgui is on version 2.2 and reached production stability in 2006.
> Many of the MSEgui functions were impossible to achieve or need an enormous
> work with native widgetsets and MSEide+MSEgui surely had not production
> quality now. Lazarus too had not 100% production quality now if I invested my
> time into Lazarus instead to develop MSEide+MSEgui.

Nonsense.

If you and Graeme had spent your time and effort on Lazarus, it would have
reached that level a long time ago. The widgetset issue has very little to do
with it, IMHO.

Michael.