[Lazarus] Stop making false claims and statements on the wiki!
lazarus at mfriebe.de
Tue Mar 27 16:17:01 CEST 2012
On 27/03/2012 13:58, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Hi Felipe,
> PLEASE STOP SPREADING FUD!
> Regarding the wiki page...
I realize, it is not my "war", but a few comments.
Personally I am not using either of them. I do definitely not have a
And I would definitely like to see both of them growing.
> [if you don't like harsh language - stop reading now]
> "fpGUI acts as an unnecessary intermediary layer between the LCL and
> the platform, which makes the development harder. It is also not part
> of the Lazarus code base, uses a different version control system and
> has different versions which would need to be synchronized."
I think the problem starts with not differentiating between fpgui and
Below is from memory. apologies, if any is outdated or incorrect.
fpgui is a self standing developing tool, which takes a different
approach on how an application is put together. It might be possible to
compare fpgui against the Lazurus IDE+LCL. But I see little point in
comparing fpgui against a single laz-widgetset (unless you also compare
all the laz-WS against each other)
fpgui-LCL is what can be compared (similar target custom drawn stuff in
And well, about fpgui-LCL some of that is true: it appears to have low
amount of maintenance (there was some, but it seems to *currently* have
less work put to it than the CustomDrawn)
And yes, (AFAIK) it requires the extra download of the fpgui sources and
setting up the path. That is not 1 to 1 comparable with the need of gtk2
The need of synchronization exist for most widgetset. even the w32 WS
needs updates (e.g vista aero). But because it is well maintained, those
changes are made in the WS code.
If fpgui-LCL was equally well maintained, it should have all the IFDEF
to work with a wide range of fpgui versions.
However "extra layer" is probably misleading. The difference is that
with fpgui the codebase is split into fpgui-LCL and fpgui.
Nothing about this is "unnecessary" (in that I am with Graeme)
> Then you also make FALSE statements like "it's harder to use" - based
> on what proof or research????
Well, true: it does not "make the development harder"
The correct description would be: "It requires one or two extra steps to
be installed" (no judgement on how hard or easy that may be)
Once installed, that does no longer matter.
> "it's not part of Lazarus code base" - well neither is Qt, GTK1, GTK2,
> Carbon or Cocoa. To what the hell is the point of mentioning that,
> other that to make fpGUI look worse once again.
Neither of them are pascal units, that need to be compiled, and neither
need to setup include pathes
And if you *install* lazarus, they are usually installed as dependencies
(well not all at the same time, but one is usually present)
More information about the Lazarus