[lazarus] Open for Opinion

Baeseman, Cliff Cliff.Baeseman at greenheck.com
Wed May 19 18:33:47 EDT 1999


Sergio,

   If it is components you like to do than so be it.  myself and shane wish
to build a first pass editor.
We will then work the components with you. I am going to add your code to
the CVS this evening because I think it is
a very nice clean piece of work.  You can keep working the component stuff
and myself and shane will get our editor working using a straight GTK. We
only wish to get this done to allow some of our windows delphi fans a
friendlier environment in which to use FPC. This will help ramp up
development of the IDE and component libraries.

Thanx for the code I will be using it tonight I am sure....


Cliff


-----Original Message-----
From: Sergio A. Kessler [mailto:sak at perio.unlp.edu.ar]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 1999 11:41 AM
To: lazarus at miraclec.com
Subject: Re: [lazarus] Open for Opinion


> > 3. Fact - The compiler is having a time with the complexity of our
> >           code.
> 
> Agreed, but that is not a fault of ours. After all we are still trying
> to do what we are with a product, FPC, that is still in development
> phase. It is growing along with the lazarus code.

Hmmm, I don't think that the mess inside the lazarus directory is
fault of FPC.

> > 4. Fact - It is difficult for us to work on seperate portions of the
> >           code in the currrent model.
> 
> Again I ask why do you say this? It appeared to me that things seem to
> be moving along nicely.

With the current code is a nightmare to create more components...

> > Now call me stupid or whatever but here is what I am opening for
> > discussion.  I suggest we step back for a moment and take a look at a
> > simpler way to get to the initial goal.
> 
> Well that all depends on the question, "What is your goal?"
> 
> I assumed at this point that the goal and only goal was to build an IDE
> for FPC in Linux. By using gtk+ as the GUI API it means it can also be
> used in Windows. Nice addition but not part of the real goal.

This is the wrong way to get multiplataform support, the _very_
wrong way, multiplataform issues should be worked on the FCL,
(and no, I'm not talking about ifdefs) _not_ in the GUI toolkit.

> Point in fact the IDE doesn't have to use ANY of the TControl or
> TComponent or any of the class structures as they now stand. I believe
> you wanted to use them to at least get somewhat of a start on building
> up the component base. Nice if you/we could but is it the goal?

I agree here, the Editor should not use any gtk specific.

> In my opinion go hog wild making your classes do WHATEVER you want them
> to do. Use gtk+. embed it as tight as you want. You are developing
> lazarus. Lazarus by definition is an IDE for FPC. It isn't the FCL for
> FPC. If we can in the future use some of the lazarus code as part of the
> FCL well then that is great.
> 
> The fpide for Windows is written in Delphi for heavens sake. The Linux
> IDE doesn't even NEED to be written in FPC.
> 
> At this point the lazarus directory could be deleted from the FPC CVS
> and it wouldn't effect FPC in any way, shape, or form. It is a separate
> item until it is cleaned up and generic enough to become part of the FCL
> of FPC. That might not ever happen. Maybe the FCL will take a different
> path but we would have an IDE, Lazarus, to use to work on it.
> 
> So my answer to the "Open for Opinion" is do whatever you need to do to
> make a working IDE. Don't worry if some of the code or classes you
> create aren't extensible anywhere else. At this point they don't need to
> be.

ok, I will be really honest, I'm not interested very much in lazarus
the editor, hey, I have a bunch of good editors in my box (currently
using gEdit), I'm a little more interested in the component library,
I don't think that a good IDE could be contructed without a working
component library first.
I don't want to lie you, but I think I have more than 10 editors
in my box, wich are installed /out of the box/ (not to mention
how many I can download)
So a editor is not my problem.
Sure, lazarus could be good for testing the component library, but
I think it should be modelled _after_ the CL, on _top_ of the CL,
not before.
So, I think that there is a difference betwen MH. and me, MH want
an Editor rigth now, no matter if the CL is crapy piece of code 
(someday we'll fix), and I want a CL done rigth _and_ easy to do
(later we'll do the editor).

Hey, tonigth I will try the IDE that is in the CVS   :)

So, _someone_ has to take the decisions, someone has to do the
job of the benevolent dictator, then I want decisions, I can't work
in a nebulus.

How, we'll proceed  ??

-- 
  |    Sergio A. Kessler  http://perio.unlp.edu.ar/~sergio
-O_O-  Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.

_________________________________________________________________
     To unsubscribe: mail lazarus-request at miraclec.com with
                "unsubscribe" as the Subject
    archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus






More information about the Lazarus mailing list