On 22/09/15 10:43, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote: > On 2015-09-22 at 11:28, Michael Schnell wrote: >> Delphi/Lazarus enabled software and "makes the difference" >> that makes using such programming systems desirable over "legacy" >> programming methods. > > > Now you are approaching “dangerous” territory. :-) Just because Delphi > and Lazarus promotes the idea of RAD development - definitely doesn’t > mean you should.
RAD might not just mean 'drag a component from the palette to a form' ;) In some sense, even the (responsibly applied) OOP paradigm leads to (more) rapid (program) development... > > If you want to develop any easy to maintain application over a long > term - definitely DO NOT USE RAD style development. This was proven > over and over. RAD is only good for prototyping or small utility apps. Mmmm, from your own garden ;) Aren't you making the tiOPF designer and framework for that purpose actually? > There is no substitute for well designed code - like when using the > well documented (tried and tested) Design Patterns, or well separated > code (UI layer, Storage layer, Business rules). > True, that. > Designing a Service or Daemon application without TTimer usage > definitely doesn't mean it is “bad” or “legacy” coding style. It might > just mean you are not using RAD style development. Nothing wrong with > that! > Sometimes I want it to 'just work' and be based on well known and understood code base, or just have no time to develop the intricacies of low-level e.g. timer handling stuff... and/or agree to the price of being limited by the 'underlying libraries'. Or find that when used the prototype it 'works well enough' for us (thanks to all the optimization & fixes from the Teams of Lazarus and FPC). (it actually means 'works amazingly') Or just don't want to reinvent the wheel for the gazilionth time... > > Regards, > - Graeme - > el es -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
