On 2 Dec 12, at 21:50, Alexander Klenin wrote: > On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Tomas Hajny <xhaj...@hajny.biz> wrote: > > On 2 Dec 12, at 16:45, Alexander Klenin wrote: > >> I am not sure which options do you mean, > >> I refer to the dll mentioned here: http://wiki.freepascal.org/gmp > > > > I meant multiple 2.6.2 installers (in particular, if we as the > > official FPC site provide also an alternative special package > > including the DLL in addition on our FTP). > As I said, IMHO it would be simpler to just include gmp.dll in the "bin" > directory, which already contains significant number of utilities > like "rm.exe" and "make.exe" for quite similar reasons.
The reasons are different. These utilities are included because they are used for building the compiler, not because someone using FPC may use them too. > >> Even if I persuade the jury of the final stage to use > >> non-standard distribution, > >> all preliminary stages (with approx. total of 5000 pupils > >> participating) will still use standard distribution. > > > > Do the preliminary stages also watch if the pupil hasn't downloaded > > an additionally required DLL? Moreover, if the pupils don't know GMP > > themselves, would they be able to use it without additional > > documentation, etc. If they know it, they'd probably know also where > > to get it from, right (and if the official jury doesn't stand in the > > way, what is the problem)? > > > > Anyway, if the pupils are taught that open source programming implies > > using just the official distribution package of your programming > > language, something is wrong in the setup anyway... > > Heh, you underestimate organization level and seriousness of > programming contests. . . Frankly, I don't know how the contest is organized in detail, but I certainly don't get the point why just this particular DLL should make any considerable difference. Programmers should find efficient solutions for given tasks. Once they know the task, they should decide about the best suiting tools for tackling the particular task. In the real world, this certainly involves potential use of available 3rd party libraries which allow concentrating on the real issue rather than reinventing the wheel. If the contest rules and the particular task(s) make Java more advantageous than Pascal, then the contest participants will probably decide accordingly and adding one particular library won't change the picture much most probably. As simple as that - FPC will never be able to provide such a breadth of own libraries as a programming environment continously sponsored and directly contributed by some of the world's largest corporations for many years. Pascal should be promoted due to its own strengths (good readability, better protection from programmer's faults, good compilation speed coupled with reasonable execution speed, etc.), not due to bundling of hundreds of megabytes of 3rd party libraries (I'm sure that all the libraries for which Pascal bindings exist would easily exceed this size and it would be probably doable, but it makes no sense). Just my 2 cents (my private opinion) Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
