On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 12:42:22AM +0100, Hans-Peter Diettrich wrote: > >> If we continue to follow Delphi, means that we are always one step behind. > > > > If we stop following delphi, we are multiple steps behind. > > FPC/Lazarus always was in front of Delphi. It had Unicode support > (UTF-8) since long, supports multiple widgetsets, platforms and > machines.
It did not. It half a solution, like the wellknown TNT components. > Even the help system and is better and more user friendly, as > well as are the editing helpers. There is some potential there, but the content is still subpar to Delphi, specially the Lazarus/LCL part. Way subpar. > The compatibility problems are selfmade, IMO. Compatibility with all > versions of a continuously moving target is near impossible, at least > not feasable with the available manpower. I don't see this at all. Yes, it is hard. Yes, it will be at a distance. But I don't see "impossible". Also major change is fairly rare. But the unicode change has been a done deal for 6 versions. This is is not about the bleeding edge, this is about planning steps that Embarcadero brought to production nearly 5 years ago, and which affect many levels of the code (more so than later additions, with the dotted change being debatable) > Now that Delphi introduced something really useful (encoded strings and > automatic conversion), the new Unicode support should be integrated into > FPC and Lazarus. When this works for the AnsiString version (UTF-8), > somewhat compatible with D7, a UnicodeString (UTF-16) version can be > considered, compatible with some newer Delphi version. A utf8 ansistring version will be per definition not compatible. -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
