Neil Graham wrote:
> To add my two cents to this debate.
>
> I have always thought the ideal form of standards (or de facto
> thereof) came
> from benevolent dictators. Borland did that job well for quite a long
> time, a single vision developed well beats the design-by-committee
> half-compromise path any day.
>
> The problem only really arose when the benevolent dictator stops being
> benevolent. (circa .net). The next best thing is what Free Pascal
> provides.
> An open architecture is lower to develop due to the additional
> discussion required, but it is also immune to taking the wrong path
> leaving people in limbo. Such events just inspire forks.
>
>
> In the article I wrote at
> http://screamingduck.com/Article.php?ArticleID=43&Show=ABCE
>
> I touched upon Free Pascal as an alternative to a standard. Being
> open means
> that people will never be denied access to the compiler, as long as it
> remains compatible with itself, that works for me. There are a number
> of languages out there for which the only implementation is the open
> source one.
>
> The other problem that I encounter is purely an evangelical one,
> People assume
> pascal is the pascal of old. I would suggest (perhaps at the time of
> a
> major release) creating a language syntax mode with a unique name.
Ah yes, the solution to the world's problem is Qomp.
Getting rid of "Pascal" name and turning the language into a more
practical and elegant syntax while we are at it.
b
Ln('Qomp Rules');
e.
_______________________________________________
fpc-other maillist - [email protected]
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
