L505 wrote:
>> In all of this talk about the need for a foundation it has been said how
>> we could have these people doing this job instead of the developers. We
>> could have others doing other jobs, etc. etc. etc.
>>
>> Well as the statements point out this needs people. It needs people that
>> are involved and interested in FPC/Lazarus. That is where the problem
>> starts.
>
> It's not just people doing work though - it is also communicating about the
> attitudes of the current people in charge too. The current attitude
> consensus is that it's just a hobby.
>
> On every single successful project, there is always lots of discussion and
> lots of code. Not just lots of code alone. Lots of code alone are the one
> man developer projects that become a selfish endeavor of one attitude
> from one developer (if two developers are on the project, it leads to two
> different code bases because of disagreement and no discussion on plans).
>
> Some of our attitudes our not in line. Some of us will and already are using
> FPC/Pascal
> for real work.. and pleasure too. But not just pleasure and not just hobby.
> What scares me
> most is the hobby attitude because I know FPC is much more than just hobby
> quality.
>
> It's not just as simple as gathering an army of programmers together and
> doing lots and
> lots of work. I've had conflicts of attitude before and it doesn't matter if
> you are both
> very hard workers, if your attitude isn't the same then you can code all you
> want but you
> might disagree on the goals of the project and start your own project. This
> is why
> OpenSource/Mozilla/OSI licenses spouted off from GNU - because people didn't
> agree on the
> same ideas. RMS is a good Lisp programmer and so is ESR, and they can pump
> out lots and
> lots of code - but that doesn't mean they will work good together.
>
> With FPC camp right now, we have two crowds or camps:
> 1. Those who want FPC to be successful for serious use, but hobby use is nice
> 2. Those who only want FPC to be hobby, serious - nahh - serious ruins the
> fun.
>
> I am part of camp 1 because I currently use FPC for serious use. I also use
> it for hobby
> too.
>
> Look, if we only use FPC for hobby and then we go off and use a real tool
> like MS VC or
> GCC for real work, how does that make FPC look? I feel that less of a hobby
> attitude is
> needed, otherwise people will get a feeling about this open source project
> "they just work
> in their spare time, it's not a serious project - only a hobby for fun".
There is something you got wrong: we consider FPC as a serious project
but we do it for fun. Most of doing software development as daily job
for years and at least for FPC I would say: the methods we use to
develop FPC are more sophisticated than a lot of payed programmers use.
The reason is simple: we want high software quality but we don't have
any time pressure.
My objections against participating in any kind of foundation are: I
think it has much more advantages for FPC if I spent my time in coding
than in administrative work. Just one example: Peter and me did the
win64 port of FPC (which resulted also in a binary writer for
x86-64-linux and a win32 linker) within less than 4 weeks which is
equally to one week of full time job. Even MS couldn't hire people doing
this because there is nobody except the current compiler developers
having the knowledge to do so. Other people would need probably months
because they don't know the compiler and rtl source code well enough.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
