On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 04:46, Hans-Peter Diettrich <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course Paul is right, when he tells me to "not change the LCL radically", > but I see many items that suffer from a poor design. Unfortunately it is not > easy to replace obvious misfeatures in the LCL and IDE by other features, > due to the lack of proper encapsulation. IMO Lazarus still is in the > "downward spiral", with immense bloat and spaghettis here and there, that > will become unmanageable in the end.
Sorry for off-topic, but I have to join with this rant. There is a balance between backwards-compatibility and good design, and I am saddened to see that design-improving patches are rejected for fear of theoretical compatibility problems, while at the same time core developers introduce incompatibilities themselves fairly regularly. -- Alexander S. Klenin -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
