subject:"\[fpc\-devel\] Pascal Standard, and what we can do."




On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:


2015-07-23 11:30 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com:


Sidenote/warning should you decide to work on the compiler now that you
have a branch directory: adhere to the coding style used in the compiler
even if you don't like it (I don't either ;) ), because that will
definitely be a reason to refuse your code (you wouldn't be the first).


I pointed this out before. For the greater good, we must to sacrifice
oneself. ;) I'll start work at the end of August. I need to complete some
work on sparta/lazarus branch. There is also wedding on my roadmap.


Congrats, and that should be top priority :)

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-24 Thread Marco van de Voort

In our previous episode, Den said:
 Actually, I recently proposed several changes to CSS, and I'm not a part 
 of their working group.  I can even track the status of it.

You don't need to become part of FPC core to post bugs or requests either.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-24 Thread Den

Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work 
on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people 
more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone 
can just edit.  A system where voting is necessary, just like Standards 
from W3C, Khronos, etc, etc. A mailing list where people debate 
endlessly is not productive; we could have had a # of votes to see what 
should/should not be implemented, instead of a few key members deeming 
what's 'pascalish' or not. You may create that fork/branch now, but who 
knows who will actually end up merging it in? If they ever do. This is 
why we need a standard, so that there is NO wasted work, and people can 
get experience implementing things that are well documented first and 
know how they should act.


*Plan first, Then Code*: I believe was said? ;)

Then let us plan a standard, and what each feature should do, *then code*.
I hope there is enough rally for this to happen!

- Dennis Fehr

On 2015-07-24 02:29 AM, Maciej Izak wrote:
2015-07-23 11:22 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org 
mailto:mich...@freepascal.org:



The most convenient technological argument is compatibility
with Oxygene.


Well, that's a political argument, I think: we can choose to be
not compatible with Oxygene :)
(whether or not this would constitute suicide or not, is up for
debate)


To start any work on this I need to provide a few more patches related 
to Delphi compatibility. I would like to return to the subject in near 
future.


The rest is in many cases a matter of taste. We can endlessly
debate what
is more readable :)


Good. Now you're talking sense :)

I look forward to your contributions!


Nice to hear that. So I guess I don't need any fork ;) phew!

--
Best regards,
Maciej Izak


___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-24 Thread Maciej Izak

2015-07-24 12:13 GMT+02:00 Den cyr...@gmail.com:

  Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work
 on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people
 more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone can
 just edit.  A system where voting is necessary, just like Standards from
 W3C, Khronos, etc, etc. A mailing list where people debate endlessly is not
 productive; we could have had a # of votes to see what should/should not be
 implemented, instead of a few key members deeming what's 'pascalish' or
 not. You may create that fork/branch now, but who knows who will actually
 end up merging it in? If they ever do. This is why we need a standard, so
 that there is NO wasted work, and people can get experience implementing
 things that are well documented first and know how they should act.


Simple/light voting system for that purpose integrated with proposal
documents is also in my roadmap (something like
https://gcc.gnu.org/projects/cxx1y.html but with users accounts/simple
comments/voting system). Anyway I don't have any timeline for that. Maybe
I'll do it sooner than any compiler change.

-- 
Best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-24 Thread Marco van de Voort

In our previous episode, Den said:
  Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work 
 on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people 
 more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone 
 can just edit.  A system where voting is necessary, just like Standards 
 from W3C, Khronos, etc, etc.

Neither is voting by uninformed people. People admitted to W3C and Kronos
are a preselected group, not every internet user can vote directly on
proposals.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Marco van de Voort wrote:


In our previous episode, Den said:

 Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work
on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people
more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone
can just edit.  A system where voting is necessary, just like Standards
from W3C, Khronos, etc, etc.


Neither is voting by uninformed people. People admitted to W3C and Kronos
are a preselected group, not every internet user can vote directly on
proposals.


And even so, they mess up. 
XML was nice in theory, till namespaces came along.

SOAP was nice in theory, till large companies messed with it.
OAuth used to be simple, till version 2.0 come along.
Just to name a few I came into contact with. 
Design by committee is rarely a good plan.


I just keep hoping they will leave JSON and JSON-RPC and JSONSchema alone :(

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-24 Thread Michael Schnell


On 07/24/2015 12:13 PM, Den wrote:


*Plan first, Then Code*: I believe was said? ;)

Tee or beer / cupboard or fridge :-) :-) :-)

-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Den wrote:

   Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work on a 
Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people more of a 
look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone can just edit. 
A system where voting is necessary, just like Standards from W3C, Khronos, 
etc, etc. A mailing list where people debate endlessly is not productive; we 
could have had a # of votes to see what should/should not be implemented, 
instead of a few key members deeming what's 'pascalish' or not. You may 
create that fork/branch now, but who knows who will actually end up merging 
it in? If they ever do. This is why we need a standard, so that there is NO 
wasted work, and people can get experience implementing things that are well 
documented first and know how they should act.


*Plan first, Then Code*: I believe was said? ;)


Definitely. It will be good to have a working document.

But an open source project is not a democracy; it is a meritocracy. 
If someone feels like doing one of your standards, it will happen, otherwise not. 
if you think otherwise, I think you are dreaming :)

So a voting system is in my opinion redundant and probably counterproductive.

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-24 Thread Michael Schnell


On 07/24/2015 12:13 PM, Den wrote:
Perhaps we could work on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler 
itself?


 the normal RFC process ...

-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-24 Thread Den

Actually, I recently proposed several changes to CSS, and I'm not a part 
of their working group.  I can even track the status of it.


- Dennis Fehr

On 2015-07-24 06:02 AM, Marco van de Voort wrote:

In our previous episode, Den said:

  Looks like I sparked quite a bit of interest! Perhaps we could work
on a Standard instead of just on the Compiler itself? This gives people
more of a look on what 'could' happen, instead of a Wiki where everyone
can just edit.  A system where voting is necessary, just like Standards
from W3C, Khronos, etc, etc.

Neither is voting by uninformed people. People admitted to W3C and Kronos
are a preselected group, not every internet user can vote directly on
proposals.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel


___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Fri, 24 Jul 2015, Den wrote:

Actually, I recently proposed several changes to CSS, and I'm not a part of 
their working group.  I can even track the status of it.


Sure. Everyone can submit, why not ?
Marco said vote :)

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Ralf Quint


On 7/23/2015 12:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:


Oxygene is no longer pascal. It's just C# with pascal keywords. a 
pityful copy.

If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.
Exactly! I was first wondering if this would be a proper Pascal 
implementation to be used on top of .NET, but there is likely a reason 
why it isn't any longer part of Embarcadero's RAD Studio suite.


Regarding inline declarations:
Pascal is about bringing clear structure in your code. Plan first, 
code then.
From this point of view there is no need for inline variable 
declarations.

+1
That is what a lot of people that never really learned Pascal don't 
understand. And a lot of folks in the industry don't care about 
properly planned/designed software, just get something out fast, and 
deal with the problems later (aka constant delivery)


Also, the location of variables is entirely irrelevant with an IDE 
like Lazarus.
Press ctrl-c on a variable and Lazarus inserts it in the correct 
location, *as required by the language*. It is exactly because the 
Pascal language is so structured that Lazarus *can* do it.


So: People who think they *need* inline variable declarations need in 
the first place to use another language than pascal or use a better IDE.

+1
Pascal is much better in properly handling the scope of variables, 
giving you much better separation of local and global variables that 
most other programming languages. Just do it properly, without taking a 
temporary shortcut and you can eliminate a lot of potential problems 
in the future..


It is just a wish of people who think that 'anything goes', it has 
nothing to do with being more productive or being modern.



+1

Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Ralf Quint


On 7/23/2015 2:45 AM, Michael Schnell wrote:

On 07/22/2015 11:21 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:


Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to 
make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in 
one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.


???

ANSI C is a  Declare before use language, too.

No, not really. You can happily use variables and have them 
automatically assumed to be int, just as with any non-ANSI C compiler, 
just  matter of  pragma warning to be set.
And you can define procedure/functions just about anywhere, with all the 
disadvantages of a clear schema as in Pascal (like changing the 
parameters in the .c file and forgetting to change the .h file).


Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Ralf Quint


On 7/23/2015 1:35 AM, Maciej Izak wrote:
If you want the features of pure pascal, you should use $MODE OBJFPC 
or TP or FPC, full stop. You can't stop me and others from introducing 
Oxygene flavored mode.Or if inside FPC team is will to block changes 
related to Oxygene flavored syntax, let me know and I will try to 
create fork of FPC compiler.



Good luck to you!

Ralf


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Sven Barth wrote:


Am 23.07.2015 10:56 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:

I don't believe  generics are the nec-plus-ultra of pascal (or any

language). I documented them nonetheless (Sven: Ping ?)

What? Who? Me?! Can't be!
(My free time management is really screwed up since I've joined Tumblr -.-
*sigh*)


What is tumblr and how can I shut it down ? :)

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Mark Morgan Lloyd


Marco van de Voort wrote:


Typing was never the limiting factor in programming,


Surely you're joking. Do you really claim that there has ever been any 
excuse for this sort of terseness, except for minimising keyboard work?


A0: R := INSYMBOL;
A1: IF F[S[I]]  G[R] THEN GO TO A2;
 IF R = MARK THEN GO TO A9;
 I := J := I+1; S[I] := R; MOVE(NAME, V[I]); GO TO A0;
A2: IF F[S[J-1]] = G[S[J]] THEN BEGIN J := J-1; GO TO A2 END;
 M := MTB[S[J]];
A3: IF PRTB[M] = 0 THEN BEGIN ERROR(5); GO TO EXIT END;
 N := J;

And that's Wirth's code, by the way.

--
Mark Morgan Lloyd
markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk

[Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues]
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said:
  Typing was never the limiting factor in programming,
 
 Surely you're joking.

No. Note that I mean notations that are mostly shorthand, not removal
of primal language constructs.

 Do you really claim that there has ever been any 
 excuse for this sort of terseness, except for minimising keyboard work?

 
 A0: R := INSYMBOL;
 A1: IF F[S[I]]  G[R] THEN GO TO A2;
   IF R = MARK THEN GO TO A9;
   I := J := I+1; S[I] := R; MOVE(NAME, V[I]); GO TO A0;
 A2: IF F[S[J-1]] = G[S[J]] THEN BEGIN J := J-1; GO TO A2 END;
   M := MTB[S[J]];
 A3: IF PRTB[M] = 0 THEN BEGIN ERROR(5); GO TO EXIT END;
   N := J;
 
 And that's Wirth's code, by the way.

I'm not sure how this illustrates anything relating to shorthand language
constructs. 
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

Am 22.07.2015 23:13 schrieb Maciej Izak hnb.c...@gmail.com:

 2015-07-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com:

 While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
before use. While this is somewhat violated with Delphi compatible generics
there one could at least argue that the specialized type is implicitly
declared by the generic declaration...

 Regards,
 Sven

 Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't
have exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is
also Oxygene, SmartPascal). This is your opinion and this is not ultimate
truth. There is also community with experienced users and big part of this
community (especially around Delphi and Oxygene, not around FPC core
development team :P) needs modern open source Pascal.

This is not merely my opinion.

 Some people love Oxygene, and you can't tell that the Oxygene is not the
Pascal. Any new construction will be non pascalish at first glance.

No, that depends heavily on the specific construction. Mostly whether it
was obviously just ripped from other languages like C# without giving a
second thought about the way how things should be done in Pascal (for
example attributes or Delphi's generics) or not (for example tuples in
Oxygene).

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

Am 23.07.2015 15:10 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:



 On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Sven Barth wrote:

 Am 23.07.2015 10:56 schrieb Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org
:

 I don't believe  generics are the nec-plus-ultra of pascal (or any

 language). I documented them nonetheless (Sven: Ping ?)

 What? Who? Me?! Can't be!
 (My free time management is really screwed up since I've joined Tumblr
-.-
 *sigh*)


 What is tumblr and how can I shut it down ? :)

It's a social networking site. A look at Wikipedia will help you further ;)

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 8:04 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com:

 Am 22.07.2015 23:13 schrieb Maciej Izak hnb.c...@gmail.com:
  Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't
 have exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is
 also Oxygene, SmartPascal). This is your opinion and this is not ultimate
 truth. There is also community with experienced users and big part of this
 community (especially around Delphi and Oxygene, not around FPC core
 development team :P) needs modern open source Pascal.

 This is not merely my opinion.

The same on my side. There is a great opposition. So again : this is not
ultimate truth.

  Some people love Oxygene, and you can't tell that the Oxygene is not the
 Pascal. Any new construction will be non pascalish at first glance.

 No, that depends heavily on the specific construction. Mostly whether it
 was obviously just ripped from other languages like C# without giving a
 second thought about the way how things should be done in Pascal (for
 example attributes or Delphi's generics) or not (for example tuples in
 Oxygene).

IMO Delphi/Oxygene generics are better for real life development. FPC
specialize keyword is nightmare and not intuitive construction. Generics
should be short in usage. They exist for clear and reusable constructions.
I need to cite you: Prefixed modifiers are the /worst/ you can do for
Pascal.. By introducing specialize keyword, you deny yourself.

So when some crap construction is introduced by FPC team, all is ok, but
any proposed solution that is clear/clever, it becomes /non pascalish/,
/not main point of Pascal/ and /worst/ thing ever.

Ripping smart and productive constructions is good thing. They don't need
to be pascalish as hell.

best regards
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

On Wed, 22 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:

2015-07-22 19:47 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com:

While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
before use. While this is somewhat violated with Delphi compatible generics
there one could at least argue that the specialized type is implicitly
declared by the generic declaration...

Regards,
Sven

Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't have
exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is also
Oxygene, SmartPascal). This is your opinion and this is not ultimate truth.

Oxygene is no longer pascal. It's just C# with pascal keywords. a pityful copy.
If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.

Regarding inline declarations:
Pascal is about bringing clear structure in your code. Plan first, code then.

From this point of view there is no need for inline variable declarations.

Also, the location of variables is entirely irrelevant with an IDE like Lazarus.
Press ctrl-c on a variable and Lazarus inserts it in the correct location,
*as required by the language*. It is exactly because the Pascal language is so
structured that Lazarus *can* do it.

So: People who think they *need* inline variable declarations need in the first
place to use another language than pascal or use a better IDE.

Given that other languages have inline variable declarations since more than 30
years,
the statement that having inline variable declarations makes a language more
modern
is pure nonsense.

It is just a wish of people who think that 'anything goes', it has nothing to do with
being more productive or being modern.

The 'anything goes' dictum may be nice in modern arts (also often a load of
male cow droppings)
but has IMO no place in computer programming, where structure is central.

Why do you think Google, MS and some others are trying to add structure to a
language like Javascript ?
exactly so they can do things in a JS IDE like Lazarus already does. As JS is now, they simply cannot,
because the language has no structure.

But then, all that is just my truth. Yours may be entirely different.

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:


2015-07-23 8:04 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com:


Am 22.07.2015 23:13 schrieb Maciej Izak hnb.c...@gmail.com:

Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't

have exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is
also Oxygene, SmartPascal). This is your opinion and this is not ultimate
truth. There is also community with experienced users and big part of this
community (especially around Delphi and Oxygene, not around FPC core
development team :P) needs modern open source Pascal.

This is not merely my opinion.


The same on my side. There is a great opposition. So again : this is not
ultimate truth.


Some people love Oxygene, and you can't tell that the Oxygene is not the

Pascal. Any new construction will be non pascalish at first glance.

No, that depends heavily on the specific construction. Mostly whether it
was obviously just ripped from other languages like C# without giving a
second thought about the way how things should be done in Pascal (for
example attributes or Delphi's generics) or not (for example tuples in
Oxygene).


IMO Delphi/Oxygene generics are better for real life development. FPC
specialize keyword is nightmare and not intuitive construction. Generics
should be short in usage. They exist for clear and reusable constructions.
I need to cite you: Prefixed modifiers are the /worst/ you can do for
Pascal.. By introducing specialize keyword, you deny yourself.

So when some crap construction is introduced by FPC team, all is ok, but
any proposed solution that is clear/clever, it becomes /non pascalish/,
/not main point of Pascal/ and /worst/ thing ever.

Ripping smart and productive constructions is good thing. They don't need
to be pascalish as hell.


Yes, they do.

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:


 But then, all that is just my truth. Yours may be entirely different.


That is why we have $MODESWITCH and $MODE :). We can all be happy. Please
do not destroy the enthusiasm of others.

Best regards,
Maciej Izak (hnb.c...@gmail.com)
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 9:22 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:

 Yes, they do.

 Michael.


Not completely :)

best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:

 Oxygene is no longer pascal. It's just C# with pascal keywords. a pityful
 copy.
 If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.


C# is in some way new Pascal so there is nothing wrong with porting back
some features from C# to Pascal ^^. I can't use C#. I want to adopt new FPC
dialect for that purpose (Oxygene flavored) :). Damn, probably you must
hate me. ;)

Best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:


2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:


Oxygene is no longer pascal. It's just C# with pascal keywords. a pityful
copy.
If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.



C# is in some way new Pascal so there is nothing wrong with porting back
some features from C# to Pascal ^^. I can't use C#. I want to adopt new FPC
dialect for that purpose (Oxygene flavored) :). Damn, probably you must
hate me. ;)


? Not at all.

I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other 
languages.
Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.

What confuses me even more: C has been around since as long as pascal. 
It does not seem plagued by this need to be modern.


Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:


2015-07-23 9:21 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:



But then, all that is just my truth. Yours may be entirely different.



That is why we have $MODESWITCH and $MODE :). We can all be happy. Please
do not destroy the enthusiasm of others.


I don't mean to, but my bullshit detector is going in the red these days.

For example, the term 'modern' is bullshit and has no place in a technical environment. 
That's for fashion, where it can change every 6 months.


There have been NO fundamental changes in IT in the last 20 years (probably longer). 
It has *not* become more modern. It is, however, increasingly hype sensitive 
- unfortunately. Terms like 'modern' only add to the hype.


If you want to increase productivity, and think this must be done by changing 
the language, you are very IMHO very much mistaken, and as a consequence you 
will have to present stronger arguments to introduce changes.


I don't mind changes to the language, but please use correct and compelling 
arguments.

This is not perl. Perl also incorporated a lot of elements from all kinds of 
tools, it became utterly unreadable and is in free fall ever since.


Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Michael Schnell


On 07/22/2015 11:21 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:


Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to 
make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in 
one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.


???

ANSI C is a  Declare before use language, too.

-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Marco van de Voort wrote:


In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:

? Not at all.

I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other 
languages.
Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.


Just look at the forum. What is talked there? Languagewise only more Delphi
compatibility, unless it is from the people who are actually adding syntax.

Overall? Things like fpspreadsheet get more responsed than any language
feature combined.


Which fully supports my point that we need more libraries, and not language 
features.

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Frederic Da Vitoria

2015-07-23 11:45 GMT+02:00 Michael Schnell mschn...@lumino.de:

 On 07/22/2015 11:21 PM, Frederic Da Vitoria wrote:


 Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
 make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in one
 pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.


 ???

 ANSI C is a  Declare before use language, too.


Ah yes, I was referring to old C syntax. I so much hated it that I never
looked back into it since.

-- 
Frederic Da Vitoria
(davitof)

Membre de l'April - « promouvoir et défendre le logiciel libre » -
http://www.april.org
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 10:56 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:

 But I do happen to think many of your arguments are pure bullshit and
 hype, and of no value whatsoever.
 I just point that out. I would much prefer that you give REAL
 technological arguments for your changes.


The most convenient technological argument is compatibility with Oxygene.
The rest is in many cases a matter of taste. We can endlessly debate what
is more readable :)

-- 
Best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:


2015-07-23 10:56 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:


But I do happen to think many of your arguments are pure bullshit and
hype, and of no value whatsoever.
I just point that out. I would much prefer that you give REAL
technological arguments for your changes.



The most convenient technological argument is compatibility with Oxygene.


Well, that's a political argument, I think: we can choose to be not compatible 
with Oxygene :)
(whether or not this would constitute suicide or not, is up for debate)


The rest is in many cases a matter of taste. We can endlessly debate what
is more readable :)


Good. Now you're talking sense :)

I look forward to your contributions!

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

Am 23.07.2015 09:21 schrieb Maciej Izak hnb.c...@gmail.com:
  Some people love Oxygene, and you can't tell that the Oxygene is not
the Pascal. Any new construction will be non pascalish at first glance.

 No, that depends heavily on the specific construction. Mostly whether it
was obviously just ripped from other languages like C# without giving a
second thought about the way how things should be done in Pascal (for
example attributes or Delphi's generics) or not (for example tuples in
Oxygene).

 IMO Delphi/Oxygene generics are better for real life development. FPC
specialize keyword is nightmare and not intuitive construction. Generics
should be short in usage. They exist for clear and reusable constructions.
I need to cite you: Prefixed modifiers are the /worst/ you can do for
Pascal.. By introducing specialize keyword, you deny yourself.

I should have written this in the other thread where you mentioned this,
but I forgot, so: I agree that specialize falls into the same prefixed
modifiers are the worst category. The cleanest way for specializations
would be something like TMyGeneric with (Longint, String) or so, this way
there would be no potential disambiguity.
Nevertheless specialize had been introduced before my time, so I'm merely
working with what already /is/ part of the Free Pascal dialect (generics
were first introduced in 2.2 and I started working on the compiler with
2.6).
That said: I /am/ working on Delphi compatible generics (in fact 3.0 is a
big improvement compared to 2.6 in that regard, but it's still quite a way
to go) and thus you /will/ be able to work with them in mode Delphi. So
just use that mode and be happy.

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

Am 23.07.2015 10:35 schrieb Maciej Izak hnb.c...@gmail.com:

 2015-07-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:

 I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other
languages.
 Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.

 What confuses me even more: C has been around since as long as pascal.
It does not seem plagued by this need to be modern.

 Michael.


 If you want the features of pure pascal, you should use $MODE OBJFPC
or TP or FPC, full stop. You can't stop me and others from introducing
Oxygene flavored mode.Or if inside FPC team is will to block changes
related to Oxygene flavored syntax, let me know and I will try to create
fork of FPC compiler.

It will depend on the changes. For example your proposed strong and
weak changes would he rather mediate (I'm not talking about the syntax
now, but other changes in the compiler and RTL to implement it), so that is
more likely to be accepted then let's say inline variable declarations
which might lead to quite massive changes in the compiler. [Note: I'm not
saying that those /will/ lead to massive changes, I'm just cautioning you
that massive changes will be looked at more sceptically than small ones]

Sidenote/warning should you decide to work on the compiler now that you
have a branch directory: adhere to the coding style used in the compiler
even if you don't like it (I don't either ;) ), because that will
definitely be a reason to refuse your code (you wouldn't be the first).

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
 ? Not at all.
 
 I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other 
 languages.
 Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.

Just look at the forum. What is talked there? Languagewise only more Delphi
compatibility, unless it is from the people who are actually adding syntax.

Overall? Things like fpspreadsheet get more responsed than any language
feature combined.

 What confuses me even more: C has been around since as long as pascal. 
 It does not seem plagued by this need to be modern.

That's because basic syntax is inherited by all other languages. It is so
pervasive that most accept it as a given without thinking, and want to
change everything to it.

What worries me most is that language debate is again driven by shortness of
notation and other very local typing optimizations (like the var block).

Typing was never the limiting factor in programming, and carving up the
language for typing's sake will not have a noticable effect on any
production use of the (FP-)pascal language.

If, and only if you want to do language extensions, it should be about
making new aspects doable, not reducing typing and increasing superficial
language syntax.

(moreover can you borrow C syntax without accepting C's everything is an int
expression mantra? Can you randomly borrow from C# (and its slightly
Wirthianized cousin Oxygene) without changing into a GCed language and a
Java/C# typesystem?)


___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Michael Schnell


On 07/23/2015 09:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:



If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.


True for syntax variant features.

But *some* syntax candy for common multi thread usage cases (e.g. a 
parallel loop)  nowadays is a necessity.


-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Edmund Grimley Evans

Just a couple of reactions:

 Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
 make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in
 one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.

Not really. TCC does a single pass with no intermediate
representation. It leaves a gap in the procedure prologue for the code
that moves the stack pointer and fills it in when it gets to the end
of the function and knows how much space is required for the local
variables and temporaries.

 There have been NO fundamental changes in IT in the last 20 years
 (probably longer).

One could argue that multi-core and concern about security are fairly
fundamental changes. Both have lead to people trying to do
sophisticated static analysis of code whose use of pointers makes that
analysis, in general, rather difficult.

Edmund
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:


If you want the features of pure pascal, you should use $MODE OBJFPC or TP
or FPC, full stop. You can't stop me and others from introducing Oxygene
flavored mode.Or if inside FPC team is will to block changes related to
Oxygene flavored syntax, let me know and I will try to create fork of FPC
compiler.


I think you are mistaken about my motivation:

I have no intention of stopping anyone. Go ahead.
On the contrary: in the end, you do introduce changes, I will even document 
them.

I don't believe  generics are the nec-plus-ultra of pascal (or any language). 
I documented them nonetheless (Sven: Ping ?)


But I do happen to think many of your arguments are pure bullshit and hype, and 
of no value whatsoever.
I just point that out. I would much prefer that you give REAL technological 
arguments for your changes.

I also explicitly said that these statements are my personal opinion.
So, we can at least agree to disagree, no ?

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 10:12 GMT+02:00 Michael Van Canneyt mich...@freepascal.org:

 I simply don't understand why people want to introduce concepts of other
 languages.
 Just use the other language, spare yourself the agony.

 What confuses me even more: C has been around since as long as pascal. It
 does not seem plagued by this need to be modern.

 Michael.


If you want the features of pure pascal, you should use $MODE OBJFPC or TP
or FPC, full stop. You can't stop me and others from introducing Oxygene
flavored mode.Or if inside FPC team is will to block changes related to
Oxygene flavored syntax, let me know and I will try to create fork of FPC
compiler.

-- 
Best regards,
Maciej Izak
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Michael Schnell wrote:


On 07/23/2015 09:21 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:



If you want the features of C#, you should use C#, full stop.


True for syntax variant features.

But *some* syntax candy for common multi thread usage cases (e.g. a parallel 
loop)  nowadays is a necessity.


Support for a parallel loop is more than syntax candy, it is a fundamental 
language change
and hence falls under 'compelling arguments'.

Michael.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-23 Thread Michael Schnell


On 07/23/2015 10:34 AM, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:



Support for a parallel loop is more than syntax candy, it is a 
fundamental language change

and hence falls under 'compelling arguments'.


I suppose that happily such syntax supposedly will be a pure extension 
and not interfere with the traditional Pascal syntax in any $MODE.


-Michael
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.




On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Edmund Grimley Evans wrote:


Just a couple of reactions:


Declare before use has at least one technical advantage: it allows to
make much faster compliers. Declare before use allows to compile in
one pass, while compilers for languages like C need at least 2 passes.


Not really. TCC does a single pass with no intermediate
representation. It leaves a gap in the procedure prologue for the code
that moves the stack pointer and fills it in when it gets to the end
of the function and knows how much space is required for the local
variables and temporaries.


There have been NO fundamental changes in IT in the last 20 years
(probably longer).


One could argue that multi-core and concern about security are fairly
fundamental changes.


No. It is just more of the same.

I think that, currently, Quantum computing has the potential of introducing a 
real change.
The advent of SSD may have some effect in that in theory you don't need file 
operations any more, since everyting is in essence RAM.

But that's it.

Michael.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

In our previous episode, Michael Van Canneyt said:
  compatibility, unless it is from the people who are actually adding syntax.
 
  Overall? Things like fpspreadsheet get more responsed than any language
  feature combined.
 
 Which fully supports my point that we need more libraries, and not
 language features.

That, and IF there are language support enhancements, they need to be as
minimal as possible and in support of some major library concept.  Not just
syntax for syntax' sake talked up because of some perceived typing advantages.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

In our previous episode, Maciej Izak said:
  technological arguments for your changes.
 
 
 The most convenient technological argument is compatibility with Oxygene.

If oxygene is what you want, I recommend you start at the basis, and not
superficial details.

Maybe there is some overlap with the JVM work you can build on.

But IMHO it is nuts for the native modes.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-22 Thread Jonas Maebe

On 22/07/15 19:24, Paul van Helden wrote:
 What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the above)?:
 
 if X is not TSomeClass then ..
 if 5 not in [1,2,3] then ..
 
 I'm not a compiler programmer, but it almost seems like laziness that
 the second case is not possible already?

If the not operator is overloaded in TSomeClass, not TSomeClass can
be a valid expression in itself. not in could never be anything else,
but consistency is also very important.

Additionally, keeping the compiler fast and maintainable (and able to
produce sensible error messages when syntax errors are found) conflicts
with arbitrary word orders. Calling that laziness is a bit blunt.

 IMO the design philosophy should be: if it is more readable it
 should be allowed.

Allowing multiple ways to say the same thing generally does not increase
readability, even if in isolation it can look fine.


Jonas
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-22 Thread Sven Barth

Am 22.07.2015 19:25 schrieb Paul van Helden p...@planetgis.co.za:

 On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Quint freedos...@gmail.com wrote:
  [...] And quite frankly, what I have seen in object oriented code
  in recent years, I would rather take as a negative example of
evolution, of
  ways/things not to go/do...

 That is true.
 Many programmers think that coding using object orientation only
 because they use an object-oriented language. They also think that
 using a more cool syntax makes your code more professional.

 But some evolutions in a language could be a good thing, as Sven have
said.

 Yes, so for example we currently have:

 if not (X is TSomeClass) then ..
 if not (5 in [1,2,3]) then ..

 What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the
above)?:

 if X is not TSomeClass then ..
 if 5 not in [1,2,3] then ..

 I'm not a compiler programmer, but it almost seems like laziness that the
second case is not possible already? Maybe something is really hard with
multi-word operators?

The compiler is geared towards single word operators (combined with their
precedence).

 Convenience should be added to this. Take for example type inference. If
the compiler can easily figure out the type of a result, why should I have
to declare a variable first with the appropriate type? Of course that means
to allow var declarations inside the code block. Something I've always
wanted to see in Pascal since my brief stint with C++ in the early 90s. The
standard argument against is probably that is unPascallish or that it is
moving away from strong typing. I disagree: if the compiler can figure
things out before runtime you still have strong typing. So, for example, I
would like to declare something like this anywhere inside a begin..end
block:

 var A := SomeClassInstance.SomeFunction;

While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
before use. While this is somewhat violated with Delphi compatible generics
there one could at least argue that the specialized type is implicitly
declared by the generic declaration...

Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 8:39 PM, Marcos Douglas m...@delfire.net wrote:

 On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Ralf Quint freedos...@gmail.com wrote:
  [...] And quite frankly, what I have seen in object oriented code
  in recent years, I would rather take as a negative example of evolution,
 of
  ways/things not to go/do...

 That is true.
 Many programmers think that coding using object orientation only
 because they use an object-oriented language. They also think that
 using a more cool syntax makes your code more professional.

 But some evolutions in a language could be a good thing, as Sven have said.

 Yes, so for example we currently have:

if not (X is TSomeClass) then ..
if not (5 in [1,2,3]) then ..

What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the above)?:

if X is not TSomeClass then ..
if 5 not in [1,2,3] then ..

I'm not a compiler programmer, but it almost seems like laziness that the
second case is not possible already? Maybe something is really hard with
multi-word operators?

I like Pascal because it is more readable than Java, C#, Ruby, Haskell,
etc. IMO the design philosophy should be: if it is more readable it should
be allowed.

Convenience should be added to this. Take for example type inference. If
the compiler can easily figure out the type of a result, why should I have
to declare a variable first with the appropriate type? Of course that means
to allow var declarations inside the code block. Something I've always
wanted to see in Pascal since my brief stint with C++ in the early 90s. The
standard argument against is probably that is unPascallish or that it is
moving away from strong typing. I disagree: if the compiler can figure
things out before runtime you still have strong typing. So, for example, I
would like to declare something like this anywhere inside a begin..end
block:

var A := SomeClassInstance.SomeFunction;

It *looks* like JavaScript's (etc) weak typing but it is not. The compiler
will catch any mischief that may follow with the variable A. We've
eliminated a line of code that needs to be changed if the type of the
function result changes. And to me it still looks very Pascallish..

I can carry on.. tuples can save lots of lines of code while at the same
time making it more readable. How as that not cool? :-) (or functional
for that matter!)
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-22 Thread Marco van de Voort

In our previous episode, Paul van Helden said:
  Yes, so for example we currently have:
 
 if not (X is TSomeClass) then ..
 if not (5 in [1,2,3]) then ..
 
 What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the
 above)?:

Evolution in languages is like the evolution in organisms. Those who evolve
wrong or expend energy on features that are not contributing to survival
eventually perish.

So basically it all boils down to benefit/cost tradeoff, with cost both
implementation AND maintenance.

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-22 Thread Ralf Quint


On 7/22/2015 1:13 PM, Paul van Helden wrote:


Ralf, I guess I'm talking about losing the third hand and join all the 
other languages with two hands (so, minus the var block before begin 
:-) ). This is not about being lazy, but about being less verbose. Or 
in other words shorter text which is more expressive and more readable.


That's sounds like the guy from Symbolics 30 years ago, when he tried to 
convince me that Lisp is the most expressive and readable programming 
language... ;-)


Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Marco van de Voort mar...@stack.nl wrote:

 In our previous episode, Paul van Helden said:
   Yes, so for example we currently have:
 
  if not (X is TSomeClass) then ..
  if not (5 in [1,2,3]) then ..
 
  What is wrong with a language evolving to allow (in addition to the
  above)?:

 Evolution in languages is like the evolution in organisms. Those who evolve
 wrong or expend energy on features that are not contributing to survival
 eventually perish.

 So basically it all boils down to benefit/cost tradeoff, with cost both
 implementation AND maintenance.

 Understood. I'm not trying to make completely practical points here. I'm
just trying to add to the conversation about improving the language which I
love. And I'm not even suggesting anything new: these are concepts already
embraced by main-stream languages. For new projects Object Pascal seems to
be going the way of the dinosaur and I would like to see my favourite
compiler (FPC) compete with more than Delphi. Oxygene, for example. If
FPC+Lazarus is simply the anti-Delphi (to clarify: the open source
alternative to / clone of Delphi), then I guess I am barking up the wrong
tree. It just seems that this group is the only hope for an open source
modern Pascal right now... :-)
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-22 Thread Sven Barth


On 22.07.2015 20:20, Paul van Helden wrote:


On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 7:47 PM, Sven Barth pascaldra...@googlemail.com
mailto:pascaldra...@googlemail.com wrote:

 I'm not a compiler programmer, but it almost seems like laziness that the 
second case is not possible already? Maybe something is really hard with 
multi-word operators?

The compiler is geared towards single word operators (combined with
their precedence).

Is it technically infeasible to expand this to two-word operators? SQL
did it..


Not without reworking quite some parts of the parser.



 Convenience should be added to this. Take for example type inference. If the 
compiler can easily figure out the type of a result, why should I have to declare a variable 
first with the appropriate type? Of course that means to allow var declarations inside the 
code block. Something I've always wanted to see in Pascal since my brief stint with C++ in 
the early 90s. The standard argument against is probably that is unPascallish or 
that it is moving away from strong typing. I disagree: if the compiler can figure things out 
before runtime you still have strong typing. So, for example, I would like to declare 
something like this anywhere inside a begin..end block:

 var A := SomeClassInstance.SomeFunction;

While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree
with inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal
is declare before use. While this is somewhat violated with Delphi
compatible generics there one could at least argue that the
specialized type is implicitly declared by the generic declaration...

I have never managed to understand why declare before use is so
important to Pascal. I get the bit about strong typing and doing
everything possible to eliminate errors at compile time, but I still
don't get why. If this is central to what makes something Pascal, I
would love to be pointed to a good explanation. I'm not trying to be a
pain here. I've been programming in Pascal, full time, for most of my
life. It has always puzzled me why everything has to be declared first.


Because with that you have specific locations where variables are 
declared. You can see with one look (yes, I'm simplifying here) what 
variables are used in the function even if you don't have a fancy IDE 
that highlights it.


Regards,
Sven
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

2015-07-22 Thread Ralf Quint


On 7/22/2015 10:47 AM, Sven Barth wrote:

 var A := SomeClassInstance.SomeFunction;

While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with 
inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is 
declare before use.



+100

Things like this is just because people are trying to be lazy, not 
because this does improve code (human readable or otherwise).
Someone who is trying to use a construct like the one mentioned above is 
nothing but lazy, is not properly designing his/her software. And that 
is against what Pascal should stand for.
Humans miss a lot of times a third hand, but this isn't likely to happen 
that we grow one anytime soon. So get used to properly using what you 
have...


Ralf

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 9:45 PM, Ralf Quint freedos...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 7/22/2015 10:47 AM, Sven Barth wrote:

  var A := SomeClassInstance.SomeFunction;

 While I agree that type inference /might/ be useful I don't agree with
 inline variable declarations. One of the main points of Pascal is declare
 before use.

  +100

 Things like this is just because people are trying to be lazy, not because
 this does improve code (human readable or otherwise).
 Someone who is trying to use a construct like the one mentioned above is
 nothing but lazy, is not properly designing his/her software. And that is
 against what Pascal should stand for.
 Humans miss a lot of times a third hand, but this isn't likely to happen
 that we grow one anytime soon. So get used to properly using what you
 have...

 Ralf


Ralf, I guess I'm talking about losing the third hand and join all the
other languages with two hands (so, minus the var block before begin :-) ).
This is not about being lazy, but about being less verbose. Or in other
words shorter text which is more expressive and more readable.
___
fpc-devel maillist  -  fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel

Re: [fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.