johnf schrieb:
On Tuesday 31 October 2006 03:35, Marco van de Voort wrote:On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 07:02:13PM -0800, johnf wrote:If writting a wrapper was easy why haven't we got a completed QT interface?The same reason as why GTK exists at all. QT had license problems for a long while. There simply was not much interest.Moreover, Lazarus is way more than a wrapper. It is a full designer system.Why does the GTK2 have so many bugs?All widget sets have bugs.With regard to the speed of Python. I truly wonder if today we have to be concerned with performance since most of the time is spent in the GUI.All the python apps I've seen (and that were not that many, mostly small time utils) were also annoyingly slow in the GUI. Also a lot of buildprocesses have scripted parts, (xorg, tetex, openoffice to name but a few), and they actually manage to spend more time in generating a few files using a script than compiling the C app.Like FPC 'c' can be used to improve any specially slow routines in python. BTW the link suggest that Python won a few of the test. I find this fact to be strange considering FPC is compiled.Multiple reasons possible. Python delegating to more optimized C code (IOW mostly bound not by Python code), or a simplistic benchmark (like some recursion stuff) that the parrot engine can optimize away.I like FPC and Lazarus. But to suggest that Python is not an equal I believe is miss leading and not taking the facts in consideration. BTW most of what I have said also applies to Ruby.Now you really spoiled it. The only Ruby app I know is the FreeBSD portupgrade package, and it is unbearably slow.OK guys I like FPC because it's compiled. What I'm suggesting is the OOP in python works. Is it perfect - no (no private or protected vars)! Does the GUI run slow - maybe. But no general apps written in python - you must be kidding. In fact I would suggest there are more python apps in general use than FPC apps.
Prove?
Does that mean they could not have been written in FPC - no.
Prove?
Now that I have said the above I have some very serious doubts about the future of FPC. This thread is proof that my concerns are real. M$ is moving to .Net - period. The only consideration is when will FPC support .Net.
Sorry, but I don't understand your reasoning: you want gtk2/qt support for FPC. Fine. But this has _nothing_ to do with .Net?
IMHO not in the next year. But I read statements suggesting that it will never be required.
If Microsoft releases an OS without win32/win64 support and only .Net user apps, you'll get your FPC .Net within 6 months. As long as all major and good apps use win32/win64 we won't change either.
That's plain nuts.Although, FPC and Lazarus have a very devoted group. The group is not very large. In fact most of the work is done by five people (I could be wrong on the number but you get the point). What happens if they decided all to have lunch and get hit by a bus crossing the street. I'm afraid FPC and Lazarus would die. Our community is not as large as the Python community or the current hot fad Ruby.
Really? How much do the major work on Ruby/Python? 7?
Of course there are advantages to a small group but I
would still feel much better about the future if there were many more.
John
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
