On Mon, 8 Mar 2010, Martin Schreiber wrote:
On Sunday 07 March 2010 13:21:37 Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Martin (MSEgui) and myself having first hand experience in this will
definitely tell you that there are much less bugs (simply because the
code is simpler), easier to fix bugs too. And to fix a bug it's in one
location for all supported platforms (99% of the time).
The downside to this is: there is also a lot less functionality.
A simpler product is by definition easier to maintain.
As you will introduce more components, you'll also introduce more
bugs, this is inevitable.
I don't think MSEide+MSEgui has "a lot less functionality" than Lazarus. In
many areas it has even more. Examples:
Database components, graphics (transparency, 100% flicker free), skinning
(tframe, tface, tskincontroller), sophisticated key, shortcut and action
handling, twidgetgrid and many editwidgets, a unicode capable postscript
printer, sophisticated base widget component without the differentiation
TGraphicControl/TWinControl and 100% working transparency, docking...
I was talking about fpGUI, not mseide.
and mseide does not run (to my knowledge) on Mac, didn't run till recently
on 64-bit. It all depends on what you think is important.
MSEide+MSEgui is on version 2.2 and reached production stability in 2006.
Many of the MSEgui functions were impossible to achieve or need an enormous
work with native widgetsets and MSEide+MSEgui surely had not production
quality now. Lazarus too had not 100% production quality now if I invested my
time into Lazarus instead to develop MSEide+MSEgui.
Nonsense.
If you and Graeme had spent your time and effort on Lazarus, it would have
reached that level a long time ago. The widgetset issue has very little to do
with it, IMHO.
Michael.
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
