111–120 of 187 posts
https://foundation.freepascal.org/
Among founders being Delphi luminaire Boian Mitov (author of Visuino / OpenWire / OpenWireStudio etc).
Hoping the foundation can take off with some good funding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've not used Lazarus or Delphi, so I can't really compare properly. Perhaps I'm missing something. But: > if anyone knows of any similar environments (besides QtCreator, etc.) Why "besides QtCreator, etc"? It sounds to me almost like "do you know any X besides all of the popular X". Is there any particular reason you discount QtCreator? Does it not work for your purposes? Or is it just a case of you already know abo…
There is https://blind.guru/qta11y.html as a problem with QT, I think it made to HN like three days ago.
Also from your link: "For now, you will need to write a native UI for every platform you want to support." -- is the Lazarus/Delphi story any better in this respect?
The discussion you mentioned is here, btw, and it seems to have mixed views: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14946358
I mentioned Lazarus in other threads a few days ago (since my kids are playing around with it) and it's great to see it as a top-level post. Some random thoughts: - It's somewhat amusing to realize that in 2017 this is pretty much the easiest way to do a desktop app (besides RealBasic/Xojo which I've yet to try - was put off by their mandatory registration) - I wish we had RAD environments like this for more language…
I've not used Lazarus or Delphi, so I can't really compare properly. Perhaps I'm missing something. But: > if anyone knows of any similar environments (besides QtCreator, etc.) Why "besides QtCreator, etc"? It sounds to me almost like "do you know any X besides all of the popular X". Is there any particular reason you discount QtCreator? Does it not work for your purposes? Or is it just a case of you already know abo…
I know Lazarus (almost) inside out and i've tried several times to use QtCreator, mainly because C++ would allow me to reuse some of my C code. However i could never get used to how QtCreator expects from me to do more stuff, how unweildy the laying out widgets is (this is natural since Qt's layout management was made expecting programmers to do layouts via code but compared to Lazarus' alignment and anchor based layouts they feel like taking a step back - although the same can be told with Lazarus' layout if you try to do it via code) and other not necessarily big issues but still annoying enough for me to always drop it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Python bindings to Qt don't require compilation. QML is an interpreted gui declaration, and Qt Quick allows programming behavior in Javascript.
You are not comparing apples to apples. Try finding any native code static typing compiler with RAD on board featuring quick compilation within 2x C++ resulting binary speed.
For me, while I like fast compile times as much as the next person, its not a deal breaker -- the workflow/environment and library features are. Ie can they easily deliver the required value to my customers. QML gives me a good middle ground between productivity & quick turnaround time, native integration and native performance. If you're unwilling to make that tradeoff, well... then you're limiting yourself to the tools that don't make that tradeoff (which may be perfectly fine, of course).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because QtCreator isn't up to the job compared even with Delphi 1 for Windows 3.x, but sadly the younger generations never got to use it professionally. Delphi and Visual Basic, were like the Smalltalk/Lisp Machine (I am exaggerating a bit) of the RAD programming generation. Try to create a database frontend or image manipulation program in QtCreator just with the GUI designer.
The UI part of a database frontend is trivial and the code is very minimal in Qt (but there still code involved, for sure). An image manipulation program, what does Delphi provide out of the box for this? I would assume that if you have anything non-trivial, you'd have some custom code to write? I mean, they can hardly have built-in components for every possible use case so I don't have to write any code. What am I m…
The eco-system of companies selling components for every possible use case.
Most VB/Delphi shops would get early licenses from such companies. DevExpress is a surviving company from those days.
https://www.devexpress.com/Products/VCL/ (over 210 controls)
So you had a huge toolbox full with components for the majority of enterprise most common use cases.
As far as I am aware, there aren't any company selling components for Qt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've not used Lazarus or Delphi, so I can't really compare properly. Perhaps I'm missing something. But: > if anyone knows of any similar environments (besides QtCreator, etc.) Why "besides QtCreator, etc"? It sounds to me almost like "do you know any X besides all of the popular X". Is there any particular reason you discount QtCreator? Does it not work for your purposes? Or is it just a case of you already know abo…
> Why "besides QtCreator, etc"? It sounds to me almost like "do you know any X besides all of the popular X". Is there any particular reason you discount QtCreator? I know Lazarus (almost) inside out and i've tried several times to use QtCreator, mainly because C++ would allow me to reuse some of my C code. However i could never get used to how QtCreator expects from me to do more stuff, how unweildy the laying out w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For those lacking CS background, reference counting is an GC algorithm. The 5th chapter from "The Garbage Collection Handbook", http://gchandbook.org/ , one of the most renowned books in the field, there are of course other equally renowned sources I can refer to.
Formality aside, it's about deterministic GC vs nondeterministic GC.
You will know when memory gets deleted, but not how long it will take, nor how much stack space the destructors will require to run.
Enjoy Herb Sutter's "Leak-Freedom in C++... By Default." at CppCon 2016, where he explains how those issues affect C++ and goes on to implement a tracing GC.
I've made the mistake to write a complex project in Free Pascal. As far as I can tell pretty much every release of Lazarus is breaking something. And surprisingly often those breaks are major (like e.g. broken multi-threading, broken-strings, ...). For me the whole thing looks more like a playground for hobbyists and is not really useful for anything productive. There's not much continuity in the language. And for th…
The only backwards compatibility breaking they do is when they are fixing compiler bugs that shouldn't be used anyway. For example at some point it was possible to take the address of a property getter and this usually worked, but not always. They changed that to be illegal (according to the language reference it was illegal anyway) so any code that relied on that would need to change (a simple change would be to make a new property or function that gave back the address of the private reference and mark it as inline so that you wont get any performance penalty).
Personally i am very anal about backwards compatibility and i have abandoned tons of libraries (SDL, GTK, Qt, etc) because of that. In my experience Free Pascal, LCL and Lazarus are among the most stable frameworks to the point that they prefer to keep unnecessary things around for years just in case someone is still using them or introduce unnecessary options for the framework to change behavior in case someone is still relying on the old one (this is why for example you get a `RequireDerivedFormResource:=True;` line in new projects, older projects wont have this line which affects the behavior of how forms are created).
Obviously i don't know what your project was doing but you don't really provide any description (both of the issues you mentioned i haven't encountered), so i put my counter-experience here since i wouldn't like people to get the impression that Lazarus doesn't care about backwards compatibility. For me it is a prime example of a very complex project doing backwards compatibility right (hell, the Lazarus IDE itself can even be compiled with Free Pascal compilers that are years old just in case someone might for whatever reason - like the few cases mentioned above, or use FPC from some Linux distribution that only has old versions - be stuck with them). Things that break backwards compatibility are considered important bugs and are fixed - sometimes even at the cost of getting things "right".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why "besides QtCreator, etc"? It sounds to me almost like "do you know any X besides all of the popular X". Is there any particular reason you discount QtCreator? I know Lazarus (almost) inside out and i've tried several times to use QtCreator, mainly because C++ would allow me to reuse some of my C code. However i could never get used to how QtCreator expects from me to do more stuff, how unweildy the laying out w…
Have you tried QtQuick/QML? It sounds like its anchor/grid/constraints-based layouts work very similarly to Lazarus.
I've made the mistake to write a complex project in Free Pascal. As far as I can tell pretty much every release of Lazarus is breaking something. And surprisingly often those breaks are major (like e.g. broken multi-threading, broken-strings, ...). For me the whole thing looks more like a playground for hobbyists and is not really useful for anything productive. There's not much continuity in the language. And for th…
I use both Lazarus & FPC from trunk (in between releases) and even then backward compatibility is of top priority to FPC devs.