[Lazarus] *** GMX Spamverdacht *** Re: Lazarus (UTF8) and Windows: SysToUTF8, UTF8ToSys... Is there a better solution?

[Sven Barth]

Am 29.12.2013 00:25 schrieb "Marcos Douglas" <md at delfire.net>:
>
> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Sven Barth <pascaldragon at googlemail.com>
wrote:
> > On 28.12.2013 14:25, Marcos Douglas wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Florian Klämpfl
> >> <florian at freepascal.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Am 28.12.2013 13:37, schrieb Jürgen Hestermann:
> >>>>
> >>>> Am 2013-12-28 13:19, schrieb Florian Klämpfl:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I understand. But if the major companies prefer to use C# or Java
> >>>>>> instead Delphi well, they not care about Delphi compatibilities. If
> >>>>>> they care, why they would be leaving Delphi?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they leave Delphi compatibility, they normally don't go for a
> >>>>> marginal oss compiler.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The question is:
> >>>> Why did they use Delphi before at all?
> >>>>
> >>>> If the reason was that Delphi was a very common and widespread
> >>>> programming environment
> >>>> then it is a understandable behaviour to move to the next main stream
> >>>> environment
> >>>> as soon as budget and time allows.
> >>>> Such people would never care about FPC/Lazarus (even when it was
fully
> >>>> Delphi "compatible").
> >>>> They would never think about using it.
> >>>> So making FPC/Lazarus "compatible" would not hold any user of this
> >>>> group.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The world is not only 1 and 0. FPC lives (and living means getting
> >>> usefull code!) from being delphi compatible but filling the niches
> >>> delphi leaves open. Everything else is "by-catch".
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> If the reason was that they like Pascal as an easy to learn and
> >>>> mantain language then they will invest into migration even
> >>>> if not all parts are the identical to Delphi.
> >>>> Just the opposite:
> >>>> They may like that not all misconcepts are repeated in
> >>>> FPC/Lazarus and they may like that it is open source.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> GPC proved your argumentation wrong. GPC took the "clean way" of
> >>> extended pascal (you always complain about fpc's dyn. arrays. Just use
> >>> GPC, it has the clean solution) Unfortuntaly GPC development stopped
for
> >>> years due to missing contributors.  The people keeping FPC alive are
> >>> those interested in Delphi compatibility.
> >>
> >>
> >> Right.
> >> I didn't understand one thing: If I'm a Delphi XE2 programmer
> >> (suppose), why I will need to keep FPC compatible with Delphi? If I'm
> >> a Delphi programmer I will use... Delphi.
> >
> >
> > Because you (the XE2 programmer) might look at Delphi XE5's NewGen
compiler
> > (the LLVM based one) and think: "What the f*** are they doing with the
> > language?! O.o"
> > Or you might want to be compatible to more platforms than provided by
Delphi
> > XE2 or you might want to keep using a VCL compatible GUI library on
other
> > platforms whereby in Delphi you need to use FireMonkey here.
>
> Ok, understood and just for clarify I'm not a XE2 programmer... I said
> "suppose".

Of course. I've just gone with your example where you supposed that you're
one ;)

Regards,
Sven
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.lazarus-ide.org/pipermail/lazarus/attachments/20131229/5792cf28/attachment-0003.html>