Jamie McCracken wrote:
Garbage collection is largely no issue when using the Owner concept in
TComponent, using TObjectList, etc.
True and thats why I suggested ref counting Tobjects only so that no
manual memory management is required. I tend to make heavy use of TList,
Tstringlist and
Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
you *might* have less overhead using ref count on a tstringlist then
making it a component (if you are creating more than one reference to it
or passing it as a parameter to a function then yes a component would be
more efficient). You also have the problem of what
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote:
However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when
compared to modern languages like python and C#.
In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :-
Vinzent.
--
public key:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote:
However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when
compared to modern languages like python and C#.
In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :-
Dont kid yourself - a lot of my
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:22, Jamie McCracken wrote:
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote:
However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when
compared to modern languages like python and C#.
In terms of _written_ or in terms of
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:22:55 +0100
Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :-
Dont kid yourself - a lot of my fellow Delphi programmers have dumped it
for C# already so it is really worrying for me espcially with borland
C#
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote:
However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when
compared to modern languages like python and C#.
In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :-
Both in fact as they are
Micha Nelissen wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:22:55 +0100
Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :-
Dont kid yourself - a lot of my fellow Delphi programmers have dumped it
for C# already so it is really worrying for me
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:52:13 +0100
Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C# is very much like delphi, not at all like Python. What were their
reasons to switch ?
Because its so close to Delphi and they have switched because they
found it more productive. No forward declarations,
Micha Nelissen wrote:
I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ?
More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me
anything useful in return.
Garbage collection is largely no issue when using the Owner concept in
TComponent, using
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:31:51 +0100
Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ?
More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me
anything useful in return.
Please show me a
Micha Nelissen wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:31:51 +0100
Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Micha Nelissen wrote:
I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ?
More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me
anything useful in return.
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:54:54 +0200
Sebastian Kaliszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The studies show that in high level languages (C nothwithstanding) there is
very evident but simple correlation -- number of programmer errors per
language construct (typically in not obfuscated code it's very
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jamie
McCracken
Sent: donderdag 2 juni 2005 16:32
var strlist : TStringlist;
strlist := Tstringlist.create;
I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have
declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the
Sorry, the only language that does what ?
var strlist : TStringlist;
strlist := Tstringlist.create;
I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have
declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the creation process?
In C++:
TStringList strlist;
strlist =
On Thursday 02 June 2005 15:16, Uberto Barbini wrote:
If the goal is this, I'd prefear a way to declare objects
autocreated:
varauto:
strlist: TStringList;
begin
//some stuff
end;
[...]
It could be a problem to pass parameters to the constructor.
Yes, exactly. So why bother the
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 15:16, Uberto Barbini wrote:
If the goal is this, I'd prefear a way to declare objects
autocreated:
varauto:
strlist: TStringList;
begin
//some stuff
end;
[...]
It could be a problem to pass parameters to the constructor.
Yes,
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:54, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
No, they aren't (or let me put it this way: It depends on what you
measure). For instance, studies indicate that there are ten times more
errors code in C code then in Ada code once you've delivered the
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:54, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
probably the greaytest impact on Objective Pascal productioveness
would come from allowing programmers to declare classes like self
managing (self freeing, not needeing explicit destructions).
Maybe, yes. But I'm old school. I
Marco van de Voort wrote:
I think the time spent doing the manual compilation is overestimated, and
the time problem solving in automatic allocation is underestimated.
How many Java programmers routine set references to NIL ? Really a lot...
This only shows the implementation (and std library
The difference was that the same task could be coded in some languages
using significantly lesser number of lines.
But that doesn't necessarily equal to less overall time. Also specially
the size of the testing code pieces. The troubles typically only start when
the program grows larger.
This only shows the implementation (and std library design) is bad (and
that's true at least to java 1.4)
I hear this from nearly any language with automated allocation (C#, Python,
Perl, Java). The concept is simple and attractive, the practice seems to
be different.
I'm not a grear fan
| More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me
| anything useful in return.
Why do you even bother using Pascal, it seems you obviously do not like one bit
about
it.
|
|
| Garbage collection is largely no issue when using the Owner concept in
TComponent,
using
| In C++:
|
| TStringList strlist;
|
| strlist = new TStringList;
|
| How is that shorter ?
|
| okay but its still redundant. Why does the compiler need to have it
| spelt out twice? Why cant the compiler deduce that as the pointer is
| declared as TStringlist therefore it creates a
the C-style operators += etc. should better be written as +:= since C has =
as assignment, Pascal has := as assignment symbol
:= means assign to, += means add to etc., I cannot find any
inconsistency here.
Also, += and such were created to make it easier to convert C code. If
you
Jamie McCracken wrote:
I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ?
More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me
anything useful in return.
Please show me a piece of code where they are in the way. Code bloat?
They don't cost anything
Well pascal in the only mainstream langugae that does that - I dont
see the pont and it aint magic.
Jamie, now I KNOW I don't understand where you're coming from
Pascal? Mainstream? ;)
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
27 matches
Mail list logo
