Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lazarus IDE 3.0

forum.lazarus.freepascal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–78 of 78 posts

Re: Lazarus IDE 3.0

#71

Post by Laksen »

camel-cdr wrote: post #70
Laksen wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The code generation has been pretty good upstream for many years now. It's easy enough The hardest part of adding full support for RISC-V is to support the hardware floating point ABI. It's incredibly complicated for likely no real world reason. It will likely require a ton of code still to make freepascal fully compliant The software and ABI ecosystem of RISC-V is what made me personally lose my love for it. The ISA…

> It's incredibly complicated for likely no real world reason Can you explain or link to somewhere to read about this? Isn't psABI quite simple?

Sure. It's the section here https://github.com/riscv-non-isa/riscv-elf-psabi-doc/blob/ma...

It's that structs of two simple fields need to be passed in registers. And more specifically that this rule is relevant for mixed integer and floating point fields.

It's a very specific rule that requires a ton of code to implement compared to the integer calling convention. And again like the weird AMD64 convention likely invented to squeeze out a theoretical few cycles that never occur outside microbenchmarks

Re: Lazarus IDE 3.0

#72

Post by fuzztester »

spamatica wrote: post #27
MobiusHorizons wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For many people it was the first language they learned, which I think explains most of it. But the tooling was also very fast from a latency perspective, even on the slow hardware of the time, which tends to make for magical memorable experiences.

And also incredibly small. Turbo Pascal 2.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 60kb (if the info I found googling is true). Of course nowhere near the capabilities of modern environments but state of the art at the time.

>Turbo Pascal 2.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 60kb (if the info I found googling is true).

Turbo Pascal 3.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 40kb (if the info I found googling is true).

Re: Lazarus IDE 3.0

#73

Post by FpUser »

kristopolous wrote: post #50
FpUser wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"It's not wrong." I think the post you are replying to got it exactly right. IMO your post got it all wrong. >"I've met both Kurtz and Wirth and I'm sure they wouldn't have a problem with this." Modern Delphi/FreePascal and the one created by Wirth are very different. I would not call it the same language. And what you "sure they wouldn't" is totally irrelevant.

From the perspective of the learner, the actual cognitive work to get to mastery is of a similar order of magnitude and similar nature. The feature crossover is probably 80-90% depending on how you choose to enumerate them. The question was about that, specifically, not about the history, not about the nuanced details of who created it, but about how hard it was to pick up. Specifically "Any recommendations on how to…

>"The feature crossover is probably 80-90%"

It is not.

>"assembly "

It has assembly built in.

Re: Lazarus IDE 3.0

#74

Post by cylinder714 »

fuzztester wrote: post #72
spamatica wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And also incredibly small. Turbo Pascal 2.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 60kb (if the info I found googling is true). Of course nowhere near the capabilities of modern environments but state of the art at the time.

>Turbo Pascal 2.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 60kb (if the info I found googling is true). Turbo Pascal 3.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 40kb (if the info I found googling is true).

Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than

https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html

Re: Lazarus IDE 3.0

#75

Post by _mlbt »

pjmlp wrote: post #6
xyzelement wrote: post #4

I recently used freepascal’s turbo pascal + dos style ide as a retro way to do the advent of code 2023. It was a blast from the past for sure. Is this / Lazarus just a retro thing or do they have practical utility in 2023 also ?

Do get a job in 2023 coding in Object Pascal, probably not. To code some FOSS stuff, enjoy a fast compiler toolchain and RAD experience for GUI applications, worth a try.

I'd say not even just FOSS, but indie developers can get a lot of value out of Lazarus and Free Pascal. It is by far the easiest way I've found to create a quick cross platform desktop application. When I say quick, I mean quick to develop, quick to compile, and it produces native binaries (using the native toolkit!) that are quick to run and use less memory than the alternatives.

The biggest weakness is that it's not great for iOS and Android.

Re: Lazarus IDE 3.0

#77

Post by fuzztester »

cylinder714 wrote: post #74
fuzztester wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Turbo Pascal 2.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 60kb (if the info I found googling is true). Turbo Pascal 3.0 had an IDE with compiler and debugger in a binary less than 40kb (if the info I found googling is true).

Things That Turbo Pascal is Smaller Than https://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html

And it (initially at least) cost $50 vs. a few hundred dollars for other compilers of that period, like MS Pascal.
Post reply on HN