Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > > So again, what is the pros and cons between the two design choices
> > > when using the Object Pascal language?
> >
> > .dfm is good for beginners, who get confused looking at code they didn't
> > write.
> >
> > .pas is good for pros, who need to take control of their project code.
>
> Obviously you are unaware of the real reasons the .dfm mechanism was used,
> otherwise you would not use such unappropriate demeaning tone.
No offense meant. The .lfm is probably there for compatibility reasons.
> There are/were good reasons for it's use. These reasons may have been
> outdated, but at the time, they were certainly valid. It was (and is,
> in my opinion) a defendable choice. I have not seen you give any valid
> and objective reasons why code is better than resources. Unless you
> plan to give such reasons, I suggest you abstain from such demeaning
> comments.
This really has nothing to do with resources. Resources should still be
saved in its own .res file.
This is about code init, and as such should not be mutilated into some
obscure hardcoded "code init" translator, but instead be obviously exposed
for code control.
Thanks!
--
Al
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
