leledumbo

7 ms·

1.
by leledumbo 9y ago
C has its root buried deep in programming world. A lot of things were written in C, big things, that people don't want to touch but they have to use. It's no longer as popular as, say 5 years ago. Along with Java, the popularity i
2.
by leledumbo 9y ago
Yep, that's why I always recommend Lazarus instead of cracking Delphi illegally.
3.
by leledumbo 9y ago
Too wonderful. I was shocked when I see common filesystem drivers (including NTFS!), completely written in Pascal. The author must be a programming God.
4.
by leledumbo 9y ago
Lazarus and/or Free Pascal? Android is looking good, though maybe not really a pleasing experience for those with less experience. It even has multiple approaches. iOS is still dark, no one seems interested in making it work, even Ardu
5.
by leledumbo 9y ago
No other RAD claiming IDE has the same RAD capabilities as Lazarus or Delphi (or C++ builder), including QT Creator. Live database connection and manipulation while designing your form and data module? Nah, it doesn't even know what a
6.
by leledumbo 9y ago
Smaller and simpler (written in old Delphi, with some 3rd party packages, so Windows only), nothing else I guess. Lazarus is far superior in every other aspects.
7.
by leledumbo 9y ago
As MySQL develops, the bindings are updated as well, but most people will have to wait for stable release. If you use trunk, though, you can enjoy it right away because MySQL bindings has been designed rather easy to port a new version.
8.
by leledumbo 9y ago
Yes it is, finally :) I like the ability to extract build information from .lpi, despite still needs a lot of work (macros won't work), already lifts the burden to write the unnecessary build scripts.
9.
by leledumbo 10y ago
It's what Pascal should have become IMHO. Base syntax: case-insensitive Oberon. Extensions: Object Pascal features. Now that's heaven. If only we don't need to maintain backward compatibility...
10.
by leledumbo 10y ago
It's been 15 years since Lazarus (and thus LCL) was born and the following changes has happened: - GTK1 interface is obsolete (was mainstream), GTK2 is mainstream, GTK3 is on the write - QT4 is mainstream, QT5 is on the write - Carbon
11.
by leledumbo 10y ago
That's what the community has been missing all these years. Writing documentations are boring activity, so contributors tend to give only demos, examples and sometimes unit tests. How the system works is actually documented in a simpli
12.
by leledumbo 10y ago
It's already done. Many people in Pascal community works with Arduino, Pi, Odroid, etc. Ranging from simple LED toggling to complex robotics.
13.
by leledumbo 10y ago
I assure you, it can. Be it through API, custom socket protocol, bindings, no problem. When one doesn't exist yet, creating yourself is not a big deal.
14.
by leledumbo 10y ago
I agree with your first 2 sentences, which Modern Pascal is just as capable, if not more, than Java. Lazarus is an example of such complex project, it has near 5 MLoC (without external dependencies) according to openhub and is managed just
15.
by leledumbo 10y ago
Good to know that many things are native Pascal nowadays, even some great Pascal people choose to either write from scratch or native porting instead of writing wrappers. Personally I don't mind using wrappers, but having native Pascal
16.
by leledumbo 10y ago
just a single reference to open your eyes: https://ultibo.org/ web servers are just network programming, it's even easier. FPC even ships a HTTP server library with examples in only a few lines of Pascal.
17.
by leledumbo 10y ago
I never need a closure. You need a shift in thinking, closures are much heavier than ordinary procedures, at least in Golang (yes, this is a real world experience). Delphi has closures, FPC is on development, but in the end I won't use
18.
by leledumbo 10y ago
I do. I don't use CGI, though. As I find the embedded web server is more reliable. However, changing between CGI, FastCGI amd embedded server is a matter of changing a single uses clause entry. It's applicable for both the preship
19.
by leledumbo 14y ago
Nope, it will require porting. Only the pure Pascal part is portable. The Assembly and MacApp parts are not, and MacApp no longer exists in OS X AFAIK.
20.
by leledumbo 14y ago
Surely you have no idea what you're talking about. Pascal is modern, perhaps you are the one that's not up to date. Java? Err.. assuming everybody has a lot of RAM, maybe. JavaScript? Forget about it, unless you can find a compiler producin