[Lazarus] Size of binaries etc.

[Mark Morgan Lloyd]

Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
> Mark Morgan Lloyd schrieb:
>> Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote:
>>> Mark Morgan Lloyd schrieb:
>>>
>>>> But the bottom line is that the target audience is IBM mainframe 
>>>> hackers, used to handcrafting assembler and punching EBCDIC with 
>>>> their teeth. I don't want them to say "Binaries bigger than 1Mb? NBG".
>>>
>>> I wonder how mainframe applications can make use of a GUI at all?
>>
>>  From my limited experience, either all or none :-) To a much greater 
>> extent than unix-based systems they rely on having smart terminals to 
>> do all the interactive stuff, and while waiting for something to 
>> happen sit there in a halted state (on a test system here, I see a 
>> something happen every couple of minutes spinning for a couple of 
>> thousand cycles).
> 
> That's why I ask - the client-server protocol doesn't deserve a GUI on 
> the mainframe. I also assume that the protocol restricts the graphics 
> capabilities, if there are any.

In any event: in the current case all I'm doing is putting together a 
couple of developer-oriented programs that run on PCs.

>> There's not very much difference between a 3270 terminal (and its 
>> equivalents from other manufacturers) and a classic web page with 
>> embedded forms: stuff gets sent to the terminal, the user fills fields 
>> in, changed areas get sent back. All of the frontend stuff can be 
>> wrapped in the same sort of GUI as a web browser gets, in fact IBM 
>> seem to have moved seamlessly to browsers rather than their classic 
>> terminals.
> 
> IMO every client type requires a different protocol, and specific 
> preparation of the data to be sent to the terminals. Doesn't this 
> require an dedicated widgetset in the LCL, for every client type?
> 
> This in turn would require to compile a Lazarus application separately, 
> for all supported client types (widgetsets). Otherwise another layer 
> between the (then abstract) LCL components and their transfer to 
> specific client types had to be implemented in the LCL.

I think we're at cross-purposes. As I said above, I'm currently not 
trying to have anything that runs on a mainframe, and neither am I 
trying to implement a general-purpose terminal emulator.

/If/ there were an FPC port to run on a mainframe, it would see 
something roughly comparable to stdin/stdout (possibly using EBCDIC- 
let's not go there).

/If/ I were trying to write a terminal emulator, then of course it would 
need to talk 3270 (possibly with SNA, or alternatively using the 
equivalent Burroughs etc. protocols).

I'm not trying to do either of those things, but if I were then the 
clientside stuff could obviously be wrapped in a GUI in exactly the same 
way that HTTP/HTML is wrapped in a GUI or in the same way that 
AlphaWindows assumed a smart terminal with a GUI.

-- 
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]