"compatible" is nonsense, since they are not compatible to any of the
roughly three preexisting ones. Descendant could be said, but I don't even
see much evidence for that. There is a superficial resemblance in the parser
model and that is about it.
At least, they're trying to answer what the users need in .Net world
which CodeGear couldn't do. They have guts to be different instead of
being follower.
They are about as Pascal as Perl is C because they both have curly braces
and some similar operator names.
But, users have an option to convert their old Delphi codes and get the
new technology as the pay-off.
"less compatible"?!?!? Can Oxygen actually compile and execute any preexisting
code in any Pascal dialect ?
Neither FPC. My old TP codes is hardly can be compiled using FPC due the
old DOS nature. In the sake of being cross platform, incompatibility is
inevitable. Converting to less compatible but similar syntax is easier
than rewriting the whole codes in totally different syntax.
I do recognize that Rem Objects needs some language to package and promote
their frameworks (the thing they are IMHO good in), but the featurelist is a
bunch of C# me too's.
It's acceptable as they provide Oxygene only for .Net platform. Nothing
wrong of being "me too" if it offers benefits of new technologies. It's
wrong, IMO, of being stagnant and not creative in the name of
"compatibility". Technologies are always improving and changing. We
can't force ourselves to stick with old technologies just for
compatibility sake. Compatibility is preserved only if it's possible to
be done.
-Bee-
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
