Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#61

Post by andreiv » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:00 PM UTC

clouddrover wrote: post #57

andreiv wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Delphi app has been continuously "enriched" with features and special cases, based on direct feature requests for each client that requested one. This has lead to the case where there are several thousands switches which need to work together, in every combination possible. They don't always work, by the way. The new app has selected the more relevant use cases and could be better structured and implemented. Mode…

It smells like the web app still has that new car smell. I'd guess that the web app will go through the same process of enrichment. The web app will get the special cases and direct feature requests and will eventually arrive at a similar state as the old application for similar reasons, just in a different implementation.

Spot on! This is not really something that the (our) developers can control. We're already seeing this. My point was that we could use the information gathered from the prior implementation and take better can and design the new app with a higher degree of flexibility, so that, when those special cases occur, we could, for example, change a configuration file, instead of the actual code.

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#62

Post by pjmlp » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:02 PM UTC

iheartmemcache wrote: post #47

pjmlp wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to dive into the world of Oberon you should check the PDFs available at Niklaus Wirth web site and AOS. http://www.ethoberon.ethz.ch/books.html http://www.ocp.inf.ethz.ch/wiki/Documentation/Front You can also have a look how the OS used at ETHZ were like: http://progtools.org/article.php?name=oberon&section=compile... We already had it quite good on the PC with Turbo Pascal and later Delphi, which is why…

To be fair, most of the benchmarks I've seen from end-users don't have .NET Native outperforming the CLR except in huge number crunching situations[1,2]. As one would imagine in those scenarios using your standard stack of C++ with the GNU GSL[3] (which includes your BLAS, GMP, PDE, and standard lin. alg. stuff) is still pretty much king with MPL (based on MPI) with some (often modest, sometimes incredible OpenCL gai…

30 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using Assembly and those that dared to use C, Pascal, Basic and Modula-2 in home computers.

20 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using C, Turbo Pascal and those that dared to use C++, Object Pascal features in Turbo Pascal/Delphi.

So I still envision the day managed languages get to the next discussion cycle.

> what exactly did .NET Native bring that presumably made it catch up to TP/Delphi?

Static binaries, integration with the Visual C++ backed (it is not used in JIT/RyuJIT/NGEN).

Pushing C# for more use cases where they still make use of C++. If you look at the C# 7 roadmap there are still more features coming into that direction.

One of the reasons they made .NET Native, which came from Singularity actually, was that the C++/CX uptake is not take big. Most developers only reach out to C++/CX instead of C#/VB.NET for the APIs not exposed to .NET, like DirectX.

I was a big fan of TP and eventually made the jump to C++, which is also very dear to my heart.

But I would rather have a full stack language that offers me the safety of Algol languages, without C underpinnings.

With .NET Native and the integration of System C# features into .NET, it is becoming quite appealing.

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#63

Post by StevePerkins » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:21 PM UTC

Pascal falls into an unfortunate niche:

- It's nowhere near new and trendy enough to have a bandwagon (e.g. Node, Go, Rust)

- It's not obscure enough to have a retro-cool following (e.g. Tcl, Forth)

- It doesn't blaze any theoretical trails in computer science today (e.g. Haskell)

- It's not associated with any evil corporate entity, allowing you to praise it "ironically" (e.g. C#)

However, I find it to be a really pleasant language to work with, at least for side projects and the occasional cross-platform GUI app. It's a clean, easy-to-learn imperative style throwback... with respectable support for object-orientation (NOTE: Everything in this comment is directed toward Free Pascal's support for Delphi-compatible Object Pascal. I haven't written old school non-OO Pascal since the 1980's).

In a nutshell... the language syntax feels like Golang dropped its curly braces, and finally added generics!

I believe that the Lazarus IDE and GUI libary for Free Pascal (http://www.lazarus-ide.org) is by far the most compelling option out there for this common use case:

- You want to write a desktop GUI application, supporting OSX, Windows, and Linux from the same codebase.

- You strongly prefer static-typed languages. You don't want to cobble together a GTK app with Python or Ruby, and you REALLY don't want to embed three-quarters of Chrome and have to write your app in HTML and JavaScript.

- You want AOT compilation down to a standalone executable. You don't want to depend on the target machines having a Java VM or Mono installed. You don't want to wait another several years for Java AOT or .NET Native to become serious reality, and you don't want to deal with the flakiness of Mono's "mkbundle" tool.

- Life's too short to install a couple gigabytes worth of Qt, or try to make wxWidgets build properly on a Windows machine, and become proficient with C++.

If at least a few of the bullet-points above apply to you, then Free Pascal and Lazarus are definitely worth a look!

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#64

Post by iheartmemcache » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:26 PM UTC

iheartmemcache wrote: post #48

tychuz wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest they should teach JavaScript instead of Python in highschools. Websites ('web apps'..) are a big deal in, atleast, teenager's life, so they could atleast install Tampermonkey plugin and script some functionality for their favorite websites. Meanwhile after learning python if you won't work in IT is useless. Plus requirement to install Python, include python in PATH and use CMD to launch .py scripts is a…

Python has it's place. When teaching kids, I guess it comes down to two things - are you targeting the lowest barrier to entry to make something whiz-bang to appeal to the largest common denominator of "I use Facebook so I'd like to make 'computer things'", in which case, alright they can install Tampermonkey and mess with a really inconsistent language like Ecmascript5[1] then spend a lot of time explaining things l…

Errata: [1] in the end-notes was supposed to be a link to the notorious EC5 equality. http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/software/programming-co...

What was actually annotated as [1] in the end-notes should have been annotated as [2] with the proper link. The "IDE[1]" annotation should be altered to "IDE[2]".

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#65

Post by TimJYoung » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:37 PM UTC

kennydude wrote: post #54

alberte wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...Delphi's not dead - see http://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi , now it's cross platform, modern language features - generics, lambdas etc etc. Writing a Mac app in it right now :-)

"cross platform" to whatever they feel like. I remember in college my teacher bought the new version for that. Turned out "Native Android support" was phonegap which isn't native.

Absolutely false:

http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/compiling_android_apps_delph...

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#66

Post by nickpsecurity » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:39 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #62

iheartmemcache wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, most of the benchmarks I've seen from end-users don't have .NET Native outperforming the CLR except in huge number crunching situations[1,2]. As one would imagine in those scenarios using your standard stack of C++ with the GNU GSL[3] (which includes your BLAS, GMP, PDE, and standard lin. alg. stuff) is still pretty much king with MPL (based on MPI) with some (often modest, sometimes incredible OpenCL gai…

30 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using Assembly and those that dared to use C, Pascal, Basic and Modula-2 in home computers. 20 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using C, Turbo Pascal and those that dared to use C++, Object Pascal features in Turbo Pascal/Delphi. So I still envision the day managed languages get to the next discussion cycle. > what exactly did .NET Na…

"30 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using Assembly and those that dared to use C, Pascal, Basic and Modula-2 in home computers.

20 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using C, Turbo Pascal and those that dared to use C++, Object Pascal features in Turbo Pascal/Delphi."

Nice take on it. :)

"But I would rather have a full stack language that offers me the safety of Algol languages, without C underpinnings."

Exactly. That's always a Pascal advantage. You can be clear on exactly what it does and it's probably safe by default.

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#67

Post by nickpsecurity » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:41 PM UTC

StevePerkins wrote: post #63

Pascal falls into an unfortunate niche: - It's nowhere near new and trendy enough to have a bandwagon (e.g. Node, Go, Rust) - It's not obscure enough to have a retro-cool following (e.g. Tcl, Forth) - It doesn't blaze any theoretical trails in computer science today (e.g. Haskell) - It's not associated with any evil corporate entity, allowing you to praise it "ironically" (e.g. C#) However, I find it to be a really p…

I recommended it to companies as a future-proof language back in the day because of how easy it was to understand and the better safety than C. I told them that would pay off in maintenance mode plus a compiler or whatever would be easy to write if its support dwindled. Wirth's stuff is just inherently so simple.

Most went with C or C++. I hear the codebases are a b to work with. ;)

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#68

Post by kitd » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:41 PM UTC

jbb555 wrote: post #25

It's strange, the more new languages I learn, and the more complexity things like C++ acquire, the more I'm starting to feel like we lost something with simple straightforward languages like pascal and even C

Welcome to the world of being an "old" programmer.

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#69

Post by nickpsecurity » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:45 PM UTC

Borland's Delphi (now Embarcadaro) was a platform that made apps faster than C/C++, easier to read, less crashes, less undefined behavior, easy to extend, and so on. The properties of Pascal made it the closest thing to an ideal language for future-proof apps back then. I predicted that, if Borland failed, it would be straight-forward enough to create a replacement stack due to Pascal's focus on simplicity. It was good to see each iteration of Free Pascal do exactly that.

Not sure if I'd recommend Pascal today given whats available. It's still one of easiest to pick up and should be effectively future-proof. Way better than ending up with COBOL, C, etc codebases. Maybe those will be its legacy. Another part is Pascal/P showing how to do portability "like a boss." :)

Re: Free Pascal Compiler Version 3.0.0

#70

Post by iheartmemcache » Thu, Nov 26, 2015, 2:52 PM UTC

pjmlp wrote: post #62

iheartmemcache wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, most of the benchmarks I've seen from end-users don't have .NET Native outperforming the CLR except in huge number crunching situations[1,2]. As one would imagine in those scenarios using your standard stack of C++ with the GNU GSL[3] (which includes your BLAS, GMP, PDE, and standard lin. alg. stuff) is still pretty much king with MPL (based on MPI) with some (often modest, sometimes incredible OpenCL gai…

30 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using Assembly and those that dared to use C, Pascal, Basic and Modula-2 in home computers. 20 years ago I was discussing these arguments between those using C, Turbo Pascal and those that dared to use C++, Object Pascal features in Turbo Pascal/Delphi. So I still envision the day managed languages get to the next discussion cycle. > what exactly did .NET Na…

I apologize if I came off snarky; my intention wasn't to be argumentative. All of my questions were posed with genuine curiosity rather than with the passive-aggressive tone I may have unintentionally conveyed. I certainly am not in that group of language warriors. I don't have any allegiances to languages, platforms, styles of languages, or even architectures (I'll use a Harvard based over von Neumann if it gets the job done better).

Most of the people I know choosing C++ over C# are using it for the ability to get soft-real-time guarantees w/r/t performance. E.g. the gaming development guys have a "this next framebuffer ~must~ be done within 16.6 or 33.3 ms" or "I need a deterministic 'buy/sell/hold/not-enough-information-to-say-with-a-high-confidence-factor, defer-to-safety-net-policy'". At CppCon '15 most of the people I spoke to fell into a similar camp. I don't think I even spoke with one engineer who's day job involved using C++ because failed to have interop capabilities w/ DX or what not. Of course, those who attend conferences will bias in a certain way so I'm not making an appeal to that demographic as in any way representative of the C++ user-body.

My assertion was simply : those who are using C++ are using it out of the benefits of predictable behavior. They can't afford that situaiton of: your GC won't decide this is the appropriate time to move all those marked as Gen0->1 over and oh by the way they're all a few bits big and fragmented so no pre-fetching help for you. What makes those guys different from the guys who were ASM guys who refused to use C back in the day is that the compiler eventually outperformed the hand-rolled stuff - but even then the ASM guys were steadfast. You make some real interesting points though and you're right - I haven't looked at the C#7 roadmap. Hell, to be honest I haven't even written enough code to take advantage of Roslyn's introspective capabilities. Thanks though, insightful comment as always. (Please keep on posting and don't disappear like the good posters of yesteryear (edw519, grellas, etc)).