On 08/13/14 14:53, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: > On 13/08/2014 07:04, Alex Peshkoff wrote: >> On 08/12/14 21:54, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes wrote: >>> On 12/08/2014 14:37, Mark Rotteveel wrote: >>>> On 12-8-2014 18:48, Tom Coleman wrote: >>>>> One bias of mine that I will confess to is that I hate C++. Every >>>>> time I am forced to use it it turns out to be a horrible PITA. The >>>>> last project I wrestled with was an interface from our proprietary >>>>> language to ApacheMQ, and the only interface available was C++. I >>>>> develop for several platforms >>>>> and it always seems to be an endless battle of gcc versions, >>>>> library compatibility issues and missing dependencies. >>>> Totally off topic, but if you are talking about Apache ActiveMQ: there >>>> are also C clients available according to: >>>> http://activemq.apache.org/cross-language-clients.html >>>> >>>> >>> Focus of ApacheMQ is (AFAIK) on the transport layer, not about >>> interprocess communication. >>> >>> In few hours (since yesterday), I created an IDL compiler and C++ >>> generator. >>> >>> Later I'll improve it for C and FPC >> Will it be Delphi-compatible? >> >> > I asked for one to test the thing I do for FPC, but seems our "Delphi > community" is not here. > >> >> As a small exercise in Pascal (I've used to write programs on it >25 >> years ago) I attach here version 6 of our sample, which accesses C++ >> implemented interfaces from FPC program (tested on linux x64) with the >> absolutely same program logic & result as from C++. > My test was it classes, not objects, and I had to put a dummy entry in > the C++ part. > > Is this syntax Delphi-compatible?
:-) I've wrote that I've used to work with Pascal >25 years ago. For example I've used objects cause they are just present in language docs before classes. But as long as we do not talk about implementations there is no big difference between class and object, may be just small syntax sugar. Therefore it's hard for me to estimate is the syntax compatible. What about classes - in FPC manual it's noticed that they were added primarily to support Delphi, i.e. from general estimates syntax should be OK. Are you building implementations for C++ only or for other languages too? What do you think about adding different styles of C++ code generation? First of all I think about support of smart pointers. Next - ability to have implementation without Impl in the end of function names. Some people (who never need to use full C++ power, just to write single plugin) already say - with new interface it will be hard to understand where what function to use. I understand that current approach is more correct, but take a look how FPC guys care about users - they have support of various language dialects down to ancient Borland's turbopascal. Here we definitely have something to learn to. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Firebird-Devel mailing list, web interface at https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/firebird-devel
