On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 2:28 AM, Marco van de Voort <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 09:14:52PM -0700, Tom Lisjac wrote: >> The problem I see is credibility... or "if we write a lot of code with >> Lazarus/FPC, will it be maintainable with the project in perpetual >> beta?". > > Personally I think this discussion is funny, weeks before 2.4.0 comes out > and lazarus faces a transition to a new resources system.
Of course technology evolves and changes will need to be introduced over time... the problem is that better version control needs to start now so pure app coders won't have to be in the development loop on a daily basis to keep up. In the current beta model, changes are added "on the fly" and anyone developing code has to follow the development track on an almost daily basis to keep their code working. This isn't realistic for a wider audience that just wants to use the tool to write apps and have confidence that they'll be able to compile them next year without having to review all the development threads and changes that took place in between. Formalizing a 1.0 would establish a well defined baseline and make it possible to provide release notes that describe exactly what aspects of the 1.0 code would be impacted when moving to version 2, 3, 4, etc. On the other hand, if the project keeps wandering around in a beta state where changes continue to be introduced "on the fly", all the code that's currently out there will continue to become more and more broken with each passing day without a clear path for getting it fixed. > Anyway, if I have to choose between credibility for Delphi users searching > for a quick fix, and the more deeply committed serious contributing users, I > know which I choose. > > The serious users will consider the current restrained version policy as > more serious and see through a cheap spin. I would agree if I believed that Lazarus/FPC had any "serious users". Other then the core development team, their employers and people who closely follow the development track, who is using this toolchain for deploying serious public or commercial work? That wasn't a frivolous question and if such a listing exists, I'd be very interested in seeing it and noting its length. Here in the US, doing a search on hotjobs.com for "Lazarus" returns "Sorry, we didn't find any Lazarus jobs". A search for "Delphi" returns a total of 17 nationwide whereas "Java" returns 2,817, "C#" 1,159 and "Linux" 1,817. Delphi is already a relic in the US, but with changes, I hope there's still a future for Lazarus/FPC as a serious commercial tool. In another part of this thread someone pointed out that more developers are needed then users. I disagree. From my perspective, the Linux kernel again provides a useful model for a successful project that started with one guy. Once the kernel had achieved "critical mass" on a technical level (meaning it basically worked), Linus was able to "sell" a bunch of other people on trying it out... and some of those people were developers. What happened next is part of history. Lazarus has had "critical mass" for a long time. Even in 2002 I found it to be a very capable and stable tool and I thoroughly enjoyed working with it. In it's current state it is nothing short of awesome! What is needed now is to get more people actually looking at it... and if we can achieve that higher visibility and enthusiasm within the larger community, some of those new users will be developers. Where the days of Delphi are fading, the story of Lazarus is still evolving. At this point I see it as a developer's project that has been "almost ready" for wider use for far too many years. It's true that 1.0 is just a number... but it is the one that will clearly signal our "critical mass" and hopefully be the trigger that will start moving this great tool into the programming mainstream... and the job market. Thanks, -Tom -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
