Re: [lazarus] Wider use case for gamepack ?
A.J., Don't worry about Beelzebub's negative comments, I've already noted that your gamepack has a valid place and that I have plans for using it exclusively in one of my projects. Who cares if it doesn't meet someone's expectations of what they want from a package that maximizes OpenGL-whatnots and GPU-excelerometebobs? It meets your expectations, and I've said it meets mine (exceeds it, actually), and I'm sure it will do so for others as well. -- _| () |-| |\| _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
[lazarus] nice blog article: Why I use (object) Pascal
Might be of interest to both mailing lists. He plugs FPC and Lazarus, and it's nicely written. CodeGear of course makes an appearance in the comments (which are a fun read :) http://www.screamingduck.com/Article.php?ArticleID=43Show=ABCE -- _| () |-| |\| _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] may I get a demo?
On Jan 31, 2008 2:18 AM, Tanuwijaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I just join this list several days ago, because someone on Delphindo mention about this. Welcome to the list, and Lazarus! I really want to know the performance of this lazarus, may be there is someone here willing to give me a little application demo which compile to run on linux? It comes with lots of demos and examples (the IDE itself is a great example of a commercial quality Lazarus program). I want to port my application to run on linux, and seems this lazarus is the shortest path can be taken. Take a look at http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_For_Delphi_Users Lazarus is supposed to be similar to Delphi, but not an exact clone. Some things written for Delphi will compile with Lazarus, but most things will need some changes. When you're ready to convert your code to Lazarus, take a look at http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Code_Conversion_Guide _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] Wider use case for gamepack ?
On Jan 30, 2008 1:00 AM, A.J. Venter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Anyway, I think I explained now what makes it special in depth. Either the dev's will think it's cool, or they won't. I won't feel bad if they don't - it's their prerogative, but at least let it be judged fairly. Well, *I* think it's very cool. In fact, when I get back around to my life-long pet project (a chess engine extraordinaire :) this will be the first library I look at for the board UI. _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] Wider use case for gamepack ?
On Jan 30, 2008 9:05 AM, A.J. Venter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2) THIS is the tricky one so I would like some advice on how I should do it. TDoubleBuffer needs to have OnKeyDown,OnKeyUp and OnKeypressed events. Being a TCustomControl descendent, it doesn't have them - TControl does - but it doesn't have a paint handler. ... The other way I can think of is to just code the keyboardEvents in, by copying and pasting from one of the components that do have it - that seems like clutter though - code duplication is never a good idea right. How about a middle ground: create a new TKeyboardEvents unit using code from one of the components that already has it. Yes you will have the initial code duplication in creating the unit in the first place, but this would allow adding keyboard events to other controls simply by inheriting from the base class. In fact, this may be something that the LCL could use and incorporate itself in the future, if you get it working property. _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] why do delphi users hate lazarus so much?
On Jan 29, 2008 2:57 AM, A.J. Venter [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snipping well thoughtout, highly interesting background] I run a highly successful business (profitable in it's first year - almost unheard of) using lazarus Wow, this is a great success story! I hope you don't mind, but I've added your project to the wiki of 3rd-party projects developed with Lazarus (feel free to edit it): http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Projects_using_Lazarus#OutKafe Maybe you could add a screenshot or two here: http://wiki.lazarus.freepascal.org/Lazarus_Application_Gallery _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] Nokia acquires Trolltech
On Jan 28, 2008 2:05 AM, willem [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Trolltech gets acquired by Nokia. The key motivation of Nokia is CrossPlatform development. That also a kyey interest of Lazarus. So I think the Qt interface is becoming more important in the future. Regards Wim Well, it's not quite official yet. 90% of shareholders still have to approve the deal and only 66% have so far, and it has to get regulatory approval as well. But it looks like it's just a formality at this point, and they say it will be completed some time in the second quarter. As for the cross-platform motivation, this is probably true but not because of the desktop platforms. I believe Nokia is much more interested in Qtopia (the embedded version of Qt). Now, as to what this means for Qt's future, I don't know. Remember what happened to BeOS when it was acquired by Palm? I have a gut feeling that Nokia is not so interested in the open source side of things regardless of what they may say in press releases, and will try to close that aspect up as soon as it can. As I recall, Trolltech only made Qt open source very reluctantly and only after much pressure from linux open-source advocates. The Windows GPL version is still pretty restrictive. I now expect the current version of Qt to be the last GPL'd version, although a fork seems likely at this point which will probably be lead by the KDE team. _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] Nokia acquires Trolltech
On Jan 28, 2008 5:25 AM, Ales Katona [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Qt4 cannot be closed. Development can be stopped from the Trolltech/Nokia side, but the GPL v4 which was released will remain. Moreover, the foundation has rights to continue Qt development should Trolltech be bought. Right, this is what I meant by a fork (although that might not be the right word), and this is what I think will happen. I don't doubt that the KDE/Qt foundation that was formed some time ago will make sure that the current version of Qt continues to be developed so that KDE will live on. However, I doubt very seriously that Qt in its current GPL form will continue to be developed by Trolltech. I may be wrong, but I don't believe for a minute that Nokia is going to want to be developing software for their phones and proprietary platforms that has to be released under the GPL, and they will close that hole very quickly. _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] why do delphi users hate lazarus so much?
On Jan 28, 2008 11:48 AM, Warren Postma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My reason for complaining about Lazarus, and calling it unusable, is that it suffers from worse usability defects (for what I want to use it for) than even the worst-ever versions of Delphi such as Delphi 2005. And these are...? I notice you didn't say bugs. Are you talking about design flaws or bug? And if they are bugs, have you reported them? If Lazarus could be as useful to me as Delphi 7, I would change my opinion from nice little toy, to amazing open source platform pretty quickly. In what ways is not as useful as D7? I find it much more usable, myself. It's not that I hate Lazarus. I am deeply disappointed with it. In what ways? Please be specific. All the whiners who stopped buying from CodeGear because of low quality, seem to have no problem with the low quality and the missing basic features of Lazarus that Delphi has had since Delphi 3.0. Which are...? You still can't install packages in Lazarus because the underlying FPC compiler lacks a runtime package system that could support a more delphi-like designtime/runtime packages installation system. Which by the way is the worst part of Delphi. Everyone complains about Delphi component installation headaches. Wait, I'm confused. You complain about not being able to install packages in Lazarus (which isn't true, BTW, it's just different than Delphi), but then you say that's the worst part about Delphi. So which is it? If Lazarus develops ANY package support whatsoever, I'll contribute and help make it better. They have, and you haven't. I think what you mean is dynamic package loading. Why is that a make-or-break feature? You *can* still use packages. In fact, because they aren't dynamically loaded, it doesn't break the debugger (which happens on Delphi all the time). Cross platform matters to me. So I'm not like most of the lazarus haters. I'm not a hater at all. But I am a critic. Vague criticism without details is simply hate draped in deceptive clothing. _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
[lazarus] Why do Delphi users hate Lazarus so much?
Well, I guess the term Delphi users is a little broad, but it seems that every post that mentions Lazarus on borland.public.delphi.non-technical gets BLASTED by Delphi fanboys. I mean, it's really amazing to see the outright hostility towards a free software package that might very well save Pascal as a language in the future (since it sure seems that CodeGear and Borland are heading down the drain pretty fast these days). Some of these guys even start entire threads with subjects like Quit talking about Lazarus here or If you think you need cross-platform you don't need Delphi or some other nonsense. Why do they hate Lazarus so much?? As a (former) Delphi user, I just can't understand this. Delphi 7 was the last version I purchased -- which was some 6 or 7 years ago -- and I refused to purchase a newer version because they refused to fix a very serious bug in D7* (here's a link to one of my complaints about it on the newsgroup, where I describe it in more detail than I care to here: http://tinyurl.com/2ws5gw ). Of course, they *claimed* it was fixed -- in fact, the QS bug listing showed it as closed and fixed because it was fixed in D8. Well it may have been fixed in D8, but I didn't buy D8, I bought D7. They really expected us to pay for an upgrade to get this bug-fix! That was the last straw for me, and I swore I'd never purchase another Delphi product. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that I see Lazarus as salvation for the Delphi community, not something to be reviled and hated. So what if it's not as polished as Delphi! At least the FPC and Lazarus teams respond to bug reports!! And if it's something I really need fixed, I can always do it myself because it's open source. I just hope the Lazarus community isn't discouraged by those negative comments. -- John [*] It was actually two bugs. The main one was integer math optimization. But when they fixed that bug they broke Cardinal multiplication. So I had a choice, to use optimized integer math and making sure I didn't use any Cardinals, or not worry about the Cardinals and stick with un-optimized integer math. In my opinion, this was completely unacceptable, since I was developing a simulation package that made heavy use of both Cardinals and integer math, and it needed to be optimized. _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
Re: [lazarus] Why do Delphi users hate Lazarus so much?
On Jan 27, 2008 7:05 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: BTW: the cardinal mul/div overflow bug still exists in Delphi 2007 ;-) Wow, that's weird! They fixed it in the 7.1 update, but that update broke the integer optimization, which in my opinion was just as serious a bug. I guess they re-broke the overflow bug in a later fix! Whew, I'm glad I got out of that terrible loop. _ To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the Subject archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
[lazarus] TSpinEdit problem (maybe a bug?)
I have only tested this on Windows XP with 0.9.24 (fpc 2.2.0), so I
don't know if it affects the other widget sets (gtk1/2, qt, etc) or
not, or if it's even really a bug and not just standard (but bizarre)
behavior. Here's the scenario. When manually editing a tspinedit
control (i.e., by clicking in the edit box and typing in a value,
instead of simply clicking on the up/down buttons or using the up/down
arrow keys to change the value), it is possible to enter a value
outside the min/max range of the control. BUT, and this is the weird
part, the TSpinEdit.Value field is still constrained by the min/max
settings and now holds the correct min or max value, however the edit
box itself is not updated properly to reflect this and still shows the
invalid value.
This is probably a bug, and if so I will report it. But read on to see
the exact description of the problem and tell me if it's really a bug
or if it's supposed to behave this way. I hope it's a bug, because in
my current project I've got several TSpinEdit controls that I need the
user to be able to manually edit in addition to using the spin
buttons, but I still need to enforce the constraints and have the user
see that the constraint is enforced.
To demonstrate what I'm talking about, create a new project with an
empty form and place a single TSpinEdit control on it, with
SpinEdit1Change as the callback for the OnChange event. The procedure
should only contain one statement:
ShowMessage('SpinEdit1.Value = ' + IntToStr(SpinEdit1.Value));
This will pop up a message box showing the value of the control
whenever the OnChange event is triggered.
Now, when the program is compiled and run, click in the edit box,
place the cursor in front of the 0 and type a 1 (to manually input
a value of 10). The message box will pop up saying SpinEdit1.Value =
10. Now click in the edit box again, place the cursor at the front of
the 10 and type a - (a negative or minus sign). The message box
will respond with SpinEdit1.Value = 0, since the bounds are by
default 0 to 100. This means that the constraints kicked in and
prevented the control from having a value of -10 and instead limited
it to 0. However, the edit box will still display -10. You can move
focus away from the form and then return to it, minimize and restore
it, and if there are more controls on the form you can move focus to
them and away from the spin edit, but the control will still show
-10. So how can you tell it's Value field is really 0? Click on
the up button (or press the up arrow). The message box will now say
SpinEdit1.Value = 1, and the control will now correctly display 1.
The complete unit1.pas file to demonstrate the above example is:
begin unit1.pas
unit Unit1;
{$mode objfpc}{$H+}
interface
uses
Classes, SysUtils, LResources, Forms, Spin;
type
{ TForm1 }
TForm1 = class(TForm)
SpinEdit1: TSpinEdit;
procedure SpinEdit1Change(Sender: TObject);
private
{ private declarations }
public
{ public declarations }
end;
var
Form1: TForm1;
implementation
{ TForm1 }
procedure TForm1.SpinEdit1Change(Sender: TObject);
begin
ShowMessage('SpinEdit1.Value = ' + IntToStr(SpinEdit1.Value));
end;
initialization
{$I unit1.lrs}
end.
end unit1.pas
_
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
