[Lazarus] Is Lazarus project in a downward spiral?

[Daithi Haxton]

A lot of the translation was done manually in this case. But a lot of  
it was as you describe - find and replace. Some of the direct Windows  
API calls were a bit problematic, but nothing that an experienced  
coder can't resolve quickly.

One interesting discovery he made was that it's possible to cut and  
paste controls from forms in Rad Studio into lazarus! That saved a lot  
of time ...

Another interesting issue was the fact that includes in C++ aren't  
exactly "uses" in Pascal - placement matters, and some things had to  
be manually fiddled to get them just right. Good unit design in C++  
helped a lot, too.

It certainly wouldn't be impossible to get a C++ Builder to Lazarus  
converter going - you'd never get it perfect, but hey - that's what  
compiler errors are for, eh? ;>) And with some 50 programs yet to  
translate, we'll probably be doing something like that. If we do, I'll  
be sure to put the script/source up somewhere and let you folks know.  
If anybody else already has such a thing, by all means, feel free to  
share!

Be well,
Dave H.


On Mar 7, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Juha Manninen wrote:

> > We've been using C++ Builder ...
> > [...]
> > Native compilation - check. Native look and feel - check. Similar
> > object structure to our existing code base - check.
> and easier and clearer language syntax - check.
> > A colleague moved a rather complex software update tool from C++
> > Builder to Lazarus in 4 days - and we now have a Mac version as  
> well.
> > That, my friends, is nothing short of incredible.
> Hmmm... how did he convert the source code?
> Is simple find/replace enough or does it need lots of editing?
> By replace I mean :
> '{' --> begin
> '}' --> end
> '->' --> '.'
> &param --> var param
> *param --> var param (I guess)
> Remove '*'
> etc. direct syntax changes.
> If that works then it could be implemented in a future version of  
> Delphi converter, making it "Delphi / C++ Builder converter".
> Ok, it needs some parsing for sure. Like:
> bool myclass::myfunc(otherclass *param)
> must be changed to:
> function myclass.myfunc(param: otherclass): boolean;
> which already needs a parser. But if it needs a full C++ parser then  
> it becomes complicated and may not be worth the effort.
> Regards,
> Juha Manninen
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Lazarus mailing list
> Lazarus at lists.lazarus.freepascal.org
> http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus