Re: [fpc-other] Mac Questions
This is kind of not pascal related.. Can one use a Mac to compile BSD web programs and then upload these BSD programs to a BSD server? Can one create ELF on Mac and upload to a linux server fairly easily.. (compared to Windows where it is harder to make Elf's) No. The trouble of crosscompiling to *nix doesn't lie in ELF, but in the way of shared linking that requires (in the current form) libraries on the host. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: fpc-other Digest, Vol 10, Issue 3
Cross compiling on a Mac is no more difficult than cross-compiling on BSD or Linux. The only thing to keep in mind is that if you need to generate i386 programs, the host compiler has to be an i386 binary as well currently. Which Mac compilers/computers not capable of producing i386? Take the typical Mac user today, for example.. with a typical up to date Mac.. or an older Mac from 2 years ago or similar time period. Afaik all of them. Has to do with bootstrapping the compiler, and different sizes of extended afaik. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] PCRE
The fact that we cannot use JCL code inside freepascal is in fact very much on topic. The fact that the freepascal compiler is distributed with a license called GPL is in fact very much on topic since it relates to the Pascal compiler, download, installation, etc. First, it is more likely because that we maintain a LGPL-with-exception distribution policy, not because of the compiler license. Second, the issue is symmetrical. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] FPC Hypocrisy: overloaded L505
Florian Klaempfl wrote: Skybuck Flying schrieb: For records, I would use an extension field like: IP.Payload and UDP.Payload I would hardly call that obfuscation :) Having the same name for different things is always obfuscation. procedure test; procedure test(i: integer); procedure test(s: string); // oh shit, a STRING? Shortstring? or ANSISTRING!! UTF16 Widestring on Tiburon (D2008 when it comes out) even. (rest of rant skipped). You are partially right. If you encounter code that uses a string and its implementation expects a certain type, please file a bug. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Turbo51
I think that the biggest problem for using it in a commercial project is that it is not open source and a hobby project. There is a risk it gets abandoned. Yes. But that depends on the scale of you rusage. For PIC microcontrollers there is a good amount of a Pascal compilers. For 8-bitters there are some, but for 16 none. Moreover I didn't like the that much. To be honest, there is no point also, since we mostly only instrument the hardware building blocks. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] What would your second language be and why?
But there comes a time, when I like to extend my knowledge a bit. Pick up some new skills and maybe ever carry those skills over to my daytime job and programming language. First, on what primary grounds do you select the language? Commercial (iow something to put on your resume) or technical skills? If commercial, and aiming at larger business, pick either C# and Java. If technical, pick something that is complementary rather than competing to the skills you already have. But first, decide if you want to target larger or smaller companies. Smaller companies are less rigid in their language ways. Also, the languages you picked are geared at the straight administrative side of programming, where both the money and competition is biggest. If you go numeric, embedded (and there are several levels there), choices can be different. From the start I have been a big fan of the Java programming language. To me, it's a very clean and well designed language and is relatively easy to learn and understand. Just a shame the GUI performance was so bad, though that was many years back. I don't know if things have improved since. I never really liked Java syntax. I don't mind the language itself so much, but there is no love lost there. I don't want to learn some obscure anguage like D or F# that nobody would hire you for - there just isn't a commercial demand for such languages, no matter how good features they have. So, the commercial angle. Well, blindly selecting, VB.NET or C# then. Maybe if you have a feel for the industry that you go to (say they are not typically MS shops, but IBM or Sun), Java could be a choice too. Anyway, what I see as mainstream at the moment is Java and C#. Both seem to be well designed, commercially acceptable (from a job hiring point of view) and appears to be clean code. Scripting / interpreted languages like Perl etc are out! So for me, it seems a choice between C# and Java. So far I am leaning towards Java, because it's more open (no big giant monopoly hanging over it), been around for years and is commercially viable. Development tools, documentation etc are plenty full! Plus it's well supported on just about any OS and device. Don't try to rationalize a commercial decision with technical arguments. It is pointless. * What's your thoughts between Java vs C#? Roughly the same. Choice boils down to allegiance of your future employer to either MS or Sun/IBM. The size of the C# language scares me a bit though, specially the heaps of modifiers, and new syntax every two years. Though for the former one could argue where C# stops, and MSVC modifiers start. * Have you got a better choice in mind and why? While learning C#, learn VB.NET too. Not that hard, and VB.NET shops are often in desperate need for that one programmer that solves the problems the hordes can't. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Illogical automatic dereferencing
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: Then another person pops up and asks why it is allowed only for pchar/pwidechar being illogical because this is not orthogonal. Undoubtedly. I guess the best solution is to have that Delphi switch so everyone can set the behaviour he/she prefers. I guess some choice is fine, but I wouldn't change the default behaviour, except for Delphi mode. It breaks a lot of code (e.g. fcl-image uses it a _lot_) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Lazarus LRS to Delphi DCR
On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 09:29:13AM -0200, papelhigien...@gmail.com wrote: I'm creating a set of components for lazarus/delphi. Now I'm creating the icons for the component palette. So I drawed it on inkscape, created a shell script to convert from svg = png = xpm = bmp and from these xpm files I create a lazarus resource (LRS). I'm USING LINUX. But now, I don't know how to create delphi DCR from LRS (or from BMP files) without go to Windows. Note that like many Delphi binary formats, it might be version specific. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-pascal] Pascal dialect -- was: Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 72, Issue 12y
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: The main goal is implementing stuff we care about. If Delphi already implemented something similar, then unless there is an extremely good reason for doing things differently, it is stupid to implement it in a different way simply because you don't want to follow Delphi: This brings me to another question. Don't you guys feel that FPC is good enough to stand on it's own feet. As far as I know it always has ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Pascal dialect -- was: Re: fpc-pascal Digest, Vol 72, Issue 12
In our previous episode, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho said:
It seams to me that they only standarize the language itself,
something which could be done adding a {$Mode ExtPascal} or something.
Having said that, think that Object Pascal as we know it should also
have a standard.
Such discussions have raged several times. But most good standards are the
result of a multi-vendor effort, usually under the pressure of their
customers. (like the ansi C and POSIX standarization)
Unilateral standards rarely make sense, since the single vendor can deviate
from them at any time, and might not even implement it fully (e.g. OOXML)
___
fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: [fpc-devel] Parallel processing in the compiler
In our previous episode, Henry Vermaak said: how it should integrate with Windows, and how it should handle LineEnding characters etc. ?Nothing difficult about it, and the tools included work just fine. Yes, I'm talking about msysgit. It installs a whole msys tree, which I am not interested in, as I've explained above. Perhaps I'll try and build git inside my own msys. I have no idea why they just didn't integrate it - I'm sure there must be a reason. Afaik, like cywin, msys has also started with keeping a global state. It might be possible that recent builds of GIT have problems with installing multiple versions (or just moving them), while olders (that Graeme uses) didn't. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Fork
In our previous episode, Adem said: I don't mind the filter; this is life, it happens, But, I must say I am disappointed at the lack of management skills. You should ask yourself how management skills work in a community where nobody can force work on sb else. Graeme's last mail where he explains he just wants to drop quick and dirty patches AND IT IS FPC'S CORE TEAM JOB to make head or tails of it, explains the fundamental misconception better than I could do here. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Fork
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: Graeme's last mail where he explains he just wants to drop quick and dirty patches AND IT IS FPC'S CORE TEAM JOB to make head or tails of it, explains the fundamental misconception better than I could do here. And here I thought that is what a detailed commit log is for. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems the norm of SubVersion users is to give one liner commit comments. That is just wrong. The normal in Git repositories, well at least git.git repo and our company repos, is to give a much more detailed commit message. Makes applying patches a breeze, as well as when you have no review a old commit. I don't understand what providing quick and dirty patches that are not cleansed in the bug tracker has to do with a VCS. Either SVN, GIT or etching sources into metal plates. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] old installer
In our previous episode, P?ter, Bugledits said: I'm searching for old 1.X (official) FreePascal installers for all platform, especially for DOS (go32v1 and go32v2), OS2, win32 and linux. But I can't found installers older than version 2.X. Can you help me, where can I find these installers? All versions before 2.2.2 were retracted due copyright issues. The go32v1-go32v2 change happened years before 1.0.x. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: fpc-other Digest, Vol 62, Issue 1
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said: He unsubscribed from all FPC lists immediately after he sent his last message. Highly regrettable, but at least it happened /before/ all of the mailing lists etc. were transitioned to a system which the core project maintainers didn't understand and might not be in control of. That's not to say that the current system is perfect, in particular I think that everybody agrees that better integration of forums and mailing lists would be a Good Thing. Personally, I think the whole discussion has to be too tools centric. Content, that matters. That is not to say that the current website doesn't have problems (a TCL dependency to regenerate the makefiles, and the generator tool has a custom cwstring that needs regular fixing). IIRC I can't currently run all of it on FreeBSD, so I actually update the website from a work fedora machine. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Re: fpc-other Digest, Vol 62, Issue 1
In our previous episode, Jonas Maebe said: Highly regrettable, but at least it happened /before/ all of the mailing lists etc. were transitioned to a system which the core project maintainers didn't understand and might not be in control of. I don't think he ever insisted on that, and even if he did, that would never have happened. He was offering to help, not threatening a hostile takeover. As Tomas said, his proposal would have been a good candidate for replacing the broken community site. Why run a separate forum from Lazarus? ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] FPC 2.6.2 released!
Hello, Finally, FPC 2.6.2 has landed. FPC 2.6.2 is an update to 2.6.0 that contains most library progress in 2012 and some crucial compiler fixes, as well as a few new targets. Building is still in progress and some formats (deb,rpm) and targets might not be available yet. Changes that may break backwards compatibility are documented at: http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_2.6.2 For Downloads, please use the FTP server at ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/dist/2.6.2/ and sourceforge https://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/ as much possible. Enjoy! The Free Pascal Compiler Team Free Pascal Compiler Version 2.6.2 ** What's New in 2.6.2 ** Free Pascal 2.6.2 is a point release from the 2.6.0 fixes branch. Please also see http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_2.6.2 for a list of changes that may affect the behaviour of previously working code, and how to cope with these changes. Some highlights are: Compiler: * Improvements and fixes for the ARM architecture Packages: * New package fpindexer (indexing engine) * Support for observer pattern added to fcl-base (and base classes in RTL) * Lots and lots fixes and improvements for fcl-db * Support for JSON dataset added among others * Fixes and improvements for fcl-passrc (and fpdoc) * Updates for PTCPas and gtk2 * fpmkunit improvements (better support for future switch to fpmake) * Several fixes for x11 * Several fixes for winunits (and winceunits) Platforms: * Improvements to the NativeNT target (newly introduced as alpha in 2.6.0) * Many fixes for OpenBSD and NetBSD (considered in beta state now) * Internal ELF writer supported for more BSD targets * Fixes and improvements for gba and nds See http://bugs.freepascal.org/changelog_page.php for the list of reported bugs which have been fixed in this release. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] Free Pascal 2.6.4-rc1 released!
Hello We have placed the first release candidate of the Free Pascal Compiler version 2.6.4 on our ftp servers. You can help improve the upcoming 2.6.4 release by downloading and testing this release. If you want you can report what you have done here: http://wiki.freepascal.org/Testers_2.6.4 Changes that may break backwards compatibility are documented at: http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_2.6.4 Downloads are available at the main FTP server and ftp://freepascal.stack.nl/pub/fpc/beta/2.6.4-rc1/ Enjoy! The Free Pascal Compiler Team Free Pascal Compiler Version 2.6.4rc1 ** What's New in 2.6.4rc1 ** Free Pascal 2.6.4 is a point release from the 2.6.0 fixes branch. Please also see http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_2.6.4 for a list of changes that may affect the behaviour of previously working code, and how to cope with these changes. Some highlights are: Compiler: Packages: * Lots and lots fixes and improvements for fcl-db * web and json packages synchronized. * improvements to the chmcmd compiler. * Several fixes for winunits (and winceunits) Platforms: See http://bugs.freepascal.org/changelog_page.php for the list of reported bugs which have been fixed in this release. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] FPC 2.6.4 release!
Finally, FPC 2.6.4 has landed. FPC 2.6.4 is an update to 2.6.2 and 2.6.0 that contains most library progress over the 2.6.2. It will probably conclude the 2.6.x branch. Building is still in progress and some formats (deb) and targets might not be available yet. Changes that may break backwards compatibility are documented at: http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_2.6.4 Due to issues with mirroring, please use sourceforge as much as possible, http://sourceforge.net/projects/freepascal/files/ or the main (Hungarian) FTP server at ftp://www.hu.freepascal.org/pub/fpc/dist/2.6.4/ We hope the freepascal.stack.nl mirror will come into sync again in the coming days. Enjoy! The Free Pascal Compiler Team Free Pascal Compiler Version 2.6.4 ** What's New in 2.6.4 ** Free Pascal 2.6.4 is a point release from the 2.6.0 fixes branch. Please also see http://wiki.freepascal.org/User_Changes_2.6.4 for a list of changes that may affect the behaviour of previously working code, and how to cope with these changes. Some highlights are: Packages: * Lots and lots fixes and improvements for fcl-db * web and json packages synchronized. * improvements to the chmcmd compiler. * Several fixes for winunits (and winceunits) Docs: * Many additions * fpjson documented. See http://bugs.freepascal.org/changelog_page.php for the list of reported bugs which have been fixed in this release. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] PROLOG written in Pascal
In our previous episode, Hans-Peter Diettrich said: I don't understand why interested people couldn't implement mark/release for the base TP compatible level of FPC ? What is so different between TP and FPC there? Perhaps it's the effort to support it for multiple architectures? Afaik only if you try to optimize it it gets OS and arch specific. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Anybody using ultra-wide or square monitors for programming?
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: Or something like the Eizo FlexScan EV2730Q which is a 27 1920x1920 resolution monitor. Giving you back that critically important vertical space we lost since wide screen monitors got introduced. http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/index.html I really like the idea of the Eizo square monitor. Anybody using any of these (or similar) for programming? I use a 27 Ilyama Prolite fullhd screen rotated to portrait with a secondary fullhd screen (a cheaper one) for the few cases that rotated dimensions are annoying for about half an year now. I'm quite happy about the setup. (for work at home, Delphi, Windows) Not just the programming benefits, but also e.g. PDF reading (specs, datasheets) is improved. It is just a matter of learning the keybindings to toss apps quickly between screens for e.g. design work that needs the full width. If the landscape screen is not in use, I usually have a notepad with notes or so open in it. Lazarus is even easier than Delphi, since it has no sidebars to hide or make autohide. Just make whatever you don't need floating again, and use F11 etc to pop them up again. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Google Code closing down
In our previous episode, vfclists . said: Now Florian, considering your preference for GUI tools, won't the development of cross platform Git GUI surpassing Tortoise Git, Github and Atlassian's tools, SmartGit and whatever be the best advert for Lazarus and FPC? There would such a major flow of patches coming in that you would have to stop coding actively and review the patches going in like Linus does. Yeah, and I have interesting property on the moon to sell. I've a feeling you are the perfect guy for it :-) Arguments on change your infrastructure like this and the hordes will come are considered with very big scepticism. Call it Voort's law if you will. Since somehow those hordes never materialize. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Google Code closing down
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: A better metric might be finding somebody who offers a selection of VCS protocols (possibly with a common backend- I believe such things exist?) and then looking at the relative use for checkouts etc. You can start by looking at the following Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source_code_software_hosting_facilities See the Popularity section. GitHub sits and 19.8mil projects. If you look on the github referenced page, its repositories, not projects. The translation to projects is wikipedias own. The fact that github+gitlab projects people and by others the other way around should ring a bell. I get the feeling these stats are meaningless because github has a large excess of personal repositories that skews stats, while sf was more collaboration oriented. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
In our previous episode, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) said: Well, now all they need is a decent equivalent to Pascal's units (instead of relying on preprocessor hacks such as #include), Meet the C(++) Modules proposal: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf And Stroustrup is considering modules for C++17: http://www.infoq.com/news/2015/04/stroustrup-cpp17-interview ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
In our previous episode, Nikolay Nikolov said: http://www.infoq.com/news/2015/04/stroustrup-cpp17-interview Yes, I know about that too, but I'm still wondering why it took so long. C++ has an everything but the kitchen sink approach, where they introduce every programming language feature they can think of into the language (they had generics before everyone else, they have multiple inheritance, esoteric class inheritance modes (protected inheritance, wtf), template metaprogramming, etc.), so it's surprising modules took so long. I'm not deep in the C++ scene, Nico is probably better at answering this, but if I would have to guess probably a matter of demand. Till now legacy requirements outweight demand for a solution to this. Also because most C++ don't know or don't want to know the problems. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git repository of FPC not syncing with SVN
In our previous episode, Victor Campillo said: > I mostly use Git to checkout FPC development and today I saw that the > Git repository created by Graeme is not in sync with Subversion since 6 > days ago. > Graeme, could you check the issue? Considering the date, that might be the 3.0.2 branching it choked on. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git repository of FPC not syncing with SVN
In our previous episode, Victor Campillo said: > > Considering the date, that might be the 3.0.2 branching it choked on. > > So, this means that 3.0.2 will be released soon or there will be an > another RC? Relatively soon, one or two weeks, depending how building goes, final, no RC2. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Delphi may have Linux support next year
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > > Also afaik the compiler is the same as for mobile targets, with probably the > > same limitations, and not the win32/win64 delphi compiler. > > :-/ Note that I heard this when it first came on the roadmap. I haven't seen any confirmation/repitition of that tidbit in the newer rounds of roadmap news (this summer) yet. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Delphi may have Linux support next year
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > What might be interesting is if the Delphi command line compiler could run > > on AMD64 Linux, but that's yet to be seen. > > [I would assume your message is off-topic, so I set the reply-to of this > message to FPC-Other] Correct. > I doubt it will actually run on Linux, because then they would also need > a debugger, which then begs for an IDE to make debugging easier. So in > all likelihood, you would need a copy (and license) of Windows to > develop for Linux - just like you need for OSX/iOS development. Yes, it is a crosscompiler with their paserver remote debug solution. Also afaik the compiler is the same as for mobile targets, with probably the same limitations, and not the win32/win64 delphi compiler. > Just stick with FPC and have native tools for each platform. I see no > benefit of having Delphi these days. Delphi is outshined by Free Pascal > and Lazarus IDE for some years now. The debug experience under Delphi is still several times better than Lazarus. More expressions evaluate directly, and types are more easily browsed and inspectable (specially under D2010+ which has proper debug support for collection types) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] [fpc-pascal] Missing messages
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > They even allow "limited commercial use" with it. I don't know the > details though. iirc up to Eur/$ 1000 turnover. I don't know if you can use it in a big corporation inhouse to send 3 values to your PLC via serial though (since how to calculate turnover in that case?) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Your thoughts on cloud based server instances?
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > 100 bucks, I'm not complaining, since a standard T1 is only 1.54MBPS. > > Here in the UK they have been trial'ing 1Gbps fiber-to-the-home > connections in a single town for a couple months now. The rate is > ?30/month. I can't remember the exact upload speed, I think it was 100Mbps. In most Dutch cities too. I'm currently on 60/60mbps for 65 eur/month triple play. (fullhd TV, internet, telephone landline). 100mbps and higher speeds are also available. It is a bit expensive though, and I want to downgrade, but they seem to have abandoned their cheaper offerings. So probably back to cable again soon. P.s. the best thing about fiber is the latency and general reliability. (ssh's never time out) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Anyone using Orange PI
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said: > > I agree. Most of our RPis are actually running Debian, but in extremis > it's always possible to roll back to Raspbian as a baseline configuration. > > There are of course other small boards: Olimex, Odroid and now Asus. > However RPi does offer a fairly flexible and cost-effective range, and > unless the OP is considering shipping hundreds rather than 10s of boards > I suggest that getting onto both the Linux learning curve and one for > minority hardware is quite simply not cost-effective. The problem is that rpi has no fast storage interface (like SATA), some of the more expensive orangepis have sata. (though I'm not entirely sure if it is not bridged via usb) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > As with any new applications or technologies, there is always some > learning curve (big or small). There are tons of bad habits ingrained in > SVN users. Those do not translate well to Git (thank goodness). Git > works fundamentally different to SVN (for the better). So you need a > change in mindset - some refuse, hence they struggle with Git. And then > wrongly blame Git for it. I fear this is most likely what happened with > Florian. That is your very colored view about it, that automatically declares non-gits stupid. However in the last discussion we showed you various faqs (like from LLVM and FreeBSD) that mirrored the FPC core teams. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said: > Now I don't deny for a moment that Git has its advantages for > distributed working. But am I correct in my understanding that it has > nothing that maps directly onto the monotonic revision list of > traditional VCSs including Subversion? Nope. There is only some hash, and various hacks to emulate with post commit hooks, which is not at all the same in behaviour. some info is at http://llvm.org/docs/Proposals/GitHubMove.html#on-managing-revision-numbers-with-git merging, external repos were some of the other issues. (Potentially) solved issues since the previous discussion were repo dictated configuration (for linefeeds), and the ability to avoid certain branches to have multiple ends (thus leaving the next committer with the unenviable choice to wait or potentially make the situation even more complex). All from memory of ourse. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, nore...@z505.com said: > >> impossible person is usually swiftly dealt with. > > > > > Honestly, I can't even... You sound like the Expert Beginner Twitter > > account. No personal offense intended, but you just do. > > > > He's talking about Army of Programmers in a Building, an article I wrote > years ago ;-) > > Sometimes it's better to just walk over and talk to a real programmer in > a real building than it is to send some email over the christmas > holidays and wait 2 weeks for a reply for him to commit his changes.. > since he's in Barbados or Cuba on vacation. The scenario was based on older commercial VCS systems (VSS, that Team thing from Borland etc etc) that required explicit locking, and people would lock files, change some formatting and then go on holiday before their real work started. During that time nobody could make changes to those files, and even back then we already had some form of CI to a testserver that worked from the VCS, so that also hampered testing your own mods. Locks were notorious hard to break, and persons with the required rights were often also rare during those periods. And yes, if you did that, specially if the file was something central (like a file that listed all commands accepted by the command processor), people could get somewhat aggressive ;-) The DVCS scenario is not as bad, but some simple prevention of this would prevent some mistakes, and make the minefield for new devels a bit smaller, thus save a lot of annoyance on all sides. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) said: > > Git just doesn't do KISS. > > You need an SVN server to start working with SVN. With Git, you go to a > directory, do "git init" and start committing. Everything is local. Not > sure how that's not KISS. (You can add a remote later, and then push to > it, with the full history intact. This remote can even be an SVN repo.) The previous discussions were about team use of GIT, to be specific, FPC core repo. The problem is that if problems get practical the advocatists suddenly step back and aren't really able to do more than regurgitate either the standard beginner "wisdoms" or "you shouldn't want this" or "this is the new improved ways" or similar platitudes. To get get back on track, I'll restate the question I posed in the last message unambigously: how to avoid that a push of member X doesn't leave a branch in an undesirable state that leaves member Y three choices: 1. push anyway and make the mess worse 2. hold the commit/push 3. clean the mess himself. In your own repository that is no problem, and even in companies this only takes only a few LART/cluebat applications to fix. However in distributed teams this is a pain. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) said: > > how to avoid that a push of member X doesn't leave a branch in an > > undesirable state that leaves member Y three choices: > > How to avoid that member X with commit write access doesn't leave a branch > in SVN in an undesirable state? :) You have to trust people, and choose > who you give write access to a given branch/repository, really. This > didn't really change and not an argument against git. Trust is that people are not deliberately doing things. For accidental things there are tools (except GIT, apparently) > And well, in Git you don't push, but people who want to contribute, have a > pull request. Then you can review that, and either apply to your tree or > reject it. It's important to understand that in git all repositories are > equal, and that I have a "make-amiga-great-again" branch, doesn't mean > that you should have it, I could still send a pull request against your > master branch, or whatever branch. All pull requests are just a set of > changes, really. Yeah, blabla, distributed, anarchy, world domination. I though I did mention I wanted practical info? > > 1. push anyway and make the mess worse > > 2. hold the commit/push > > 3. clean the mess himself. > > Well, ideally I was not asking for ideally. I was asking very specifically how a GIT in a FPC team group would work. And no, sending 40+ pull requests to all members of core does not count. So there is one golden repo and that is what I'm talking about. > easily. It's the responsibility of the maintainer of a given branch to > accept that pull request or not, or request further changes before its > accepted. So tool failure is fixed by throwing manpower at it? We don't have an approval person now, so a requirement to that would IMHO be a dealbreaker for GIT. > And talking about myself - as much as I enjoy just committing my crap to > trunk, I sometimes would really prefer review. Not because I'm not a > senior engineer, but especially because of that... Now if I don't want to > do a branch in SVN which are huge and expensive (Git branches are cheap > and small), I either have to commit it first anyway to trunk, then ask for > a review, or send a patch for review first in e-mail, which is quite > cumbersome. Plus there's absolutely no warranty, that I later commit the > same patch which was reviewed. I would like to have lots of extra manpower too, but I rather not spend it on what in practice would be rubberstamping commits (and delays in distribution till something is approved if the reviewers are AFK). This is exactly what I wanted to avoid with the primary case posed in this subthread: how to avoid blocking the central repo for commits (from a practical viewpoint) > At work, I don't even push against master, but I do a pull request against > my own repository, and ask one of my senior colleagues to review... I > don't know about you, but to me this sounds a lot more like teamwork, than > going around beating up people "for wrongdoing" with a cluestick. Then you don't understand what I mean. In the job you go see the person, work something out, and problem sorted in a few minutes. The odd impossible person is usually swiftly dealt with. In distributed, volunteer driven, projects, people are away/nonresponsive for extended periods of time, working hours (and days) don't match. Also working this out via mail is much less productive. > Of course in the end it's just like crypto - you need to have a chain of > trust from the top, a group of trustees who will do the actual merging of > the pull requests, reviews and then push it upstream/mainline/trunk. If > one of these maintainers do a bad job, then you need to sort out that > problem, but that doesn't mean the whole system is broken. It's similar to > giving commit access to a developer who doesn't deserve it in SVN, really. I know what an honor-system is. It doesn't protect against mistakes the day before holiday. Remember the old locking VCSes ? > Now, how the actual process would look with the FPC team, that's hard to > define at this point. But the tools are there for it. > > Was this a proper answer, or I was beating around the bush in your views? > :) Sorry to say, but I didn't find anything new or usable in this post. It is the standard "think different" nonsense from a very idealist viewpoint, little practical details. So I now give up this thread (and GIT). ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, Santiago A. said: > Workflows are designed according with the tools you had when you > designed it. Sometimes you improve your workflow as you improve your > knowledge of tools. And sometimes you create new tools to improve your > workflow. > > But sometimes other people create a new tools that improves the system > but requires a dramatic change of workflow for better. I know Changing > of mindset is never easy, but the attitude of "I won't change my > workflow" closes the doors to any improvement. > > Many projects are using Git, we are not talking about early adopters or > isnewisbetter guys. It has been tested in real world for several year, > and may projects are moving to it. So I would give it a second chance. > I'm doing so, in spite I'm not exactly a young boy and early adopter, I > can see some advantages in git easy branching and merging. > > Evaluate git and workflows again as for the first time, as if it were > the first time you have heard about it. Forget Graeme Geldenhuys, > sometimes he says things with manners that well, sometimes is looks > like seducing people is not among his virtues but the other way around > ;-), Take a new fresh look to Git. I've done so every time the discussion looks up. I also have some DVCS experience with Mercurial, and I still don't see it. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] What makes a Compiler project (like FPC) special?
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > Yet the ?packages? and ?rtl? directories is just that - which by the way > is part of the FPC project. Yes, except some of the parts directly connected to the compiler and its features (like exceptions, RTTI etc) > And that is also where most commits have been going - based on the history > I queried for the last 4-6 months. That overview is skewed by a high amount of work done on pas2js by Michael and Mattias. It is atypical, and strictly speaking pas2js is ALSO a compiler. Nikolay and Karoly (+ rest of Amiga committers) have been persistently high this cycle though. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] What makes a Compiler project (like FPC) special?
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: >Just to be clear, I'm not pushing Git here - I know you guys will >not change - Florian made that very clear. Yes, boundless leaps of faith are out of the question. Git should be a tool, not a religion. >But Florian's statements just bugged me, and I see no proof to >convince me otherwise - a compiler is just a complex project. >Nothing "special" as he claimed it to be. I do think Nikolay's point of it being more interconnected describes it fairly well. There are no narrow interfaces that are natural seams for modularization inside the compiler. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, Florian Kl?mpfl said: > > donate a month of our time. > > Indeed, it depends on the person who does it. It requires knowledge about the > specific workflow > requirements of a compiler project. And that this is not easy is proven by > the fact that gcc as well > as llvm still use svn as canonical repository. They probably have a lot more > man power than FPC. So does FreeBSD, (though IIRC they also use Perforce internally), so even it is not pinacle of OS kernel development either :-) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Git & SVN
In our previous episode, Florian Kl?mpfl said: > > If you haven't found the Git project documentation on this workflow, I'll > > find it for you and post > > the URL. > > The workflow will not change. If the tool does not fit the workflow, it is > the wrong tool. Period. Even if we will change workflow more GIT like in time, the required leap of faith and transition is too large. I think the Git advocatists should focus more on a workable model for a transition and not some ideal in the far future. Even a limited change is already a massive operation, let's keep it managable. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Object Pascal Interface Delegation, but in Java
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > Does anybody familiar with Object Pascal and Java know if Java supports > something similar to Object Pascal's Interface Delegation "implements > syntax" functionality? That is often called delegation, and if you search for java and delegation, it seems not (which is not THAT surprising IMHO): https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2989005/delegation-example-regarding-java-context ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Object Pascal Interface Delegation, but in Java
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > > That is often called delegation, and if you search for java and delegation, > > it seems not (which is not THAT surprising IMHO): > > Thanks Marco. So it is actually similar to Object Pascal where you use > object composition, but with Object Pascal's "implements" keyboard the > interface is automatic in the new class's interface. Where-as with Java > you have to define the interface and then delegate the calls to the > composition object. I'm sure Eclipse must have that code-generation > functionality built-in or an add-on that can do that. > > So Object Pascal is just a bit more convenient, but the end-result > (functionality) is the same in. Well, with Pascal's syntax you could link through VMT fragments, without actually bouncing through additional code. And you don't risk forgetting adding a method to existing classes if you add one to the interface, always a risk with manual workarounds like the codegeneration tools that assume everything is designed at once top-down and only then implemented. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Firebird vs PostgreSQL
In our previous episode, Santiago A. said: > That's my point. Why Firebird is not more popular? > > Once I read two point about Firebird lack of popularity: > * In early days, firebird documentation was almost inexistent, there > were a few .txt with new features but you had to rely on Interbase 6.0 > docs, that weren't very good either. So it looked like an almost > abandoned software maintained by a few fans. > * It had no administration tool, you had (and you still have) to rely on > third part tools. I think flamerobin is the administration tool "de facto" * it was x86 only for a long time. Which is why I ended up with postgresql, having powerpc and later arm servers. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] M$ has bought GitHub
In our previous episode, Mark Morgan Lloyd said: > > What a sad day it is. It seems that one day the whole Internet will beowned > > and run my four companies: Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook.I guess > > I'll be doing what the Free Pascal project has done all along...Host my own > > repositories and bug tracker. Less sh*t and in full controlor my work. > > I've had plans to move many of my projects off SourceForge to GitHubbecause > > of SourceForge's performance problems and frequent outages. Nowthat plan > > will NOT happen and I'll most likely start hosting my ownpublic > > repositories instead. > > Another problem with Sourceforge is the fact that they enthusiastically > block access to any country that's currently on the US government's > *hitlist. I don't know what Github's policy was on that but it's pretty > sure what MS's will be... which is absolutely correct in the context of > an American corporation, but not in the context of non-American users or > paying customers. Actually Microsoft is quite a large cloud provider, and can afford to partition its offerings and isn't as dependent on a single point (or continent) hosting as others. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] M$ has bought GitHub
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said: > What a sad day it is. It seems that one day the whole Internet will be > owned and run my four companies: Apple, Google, Microsoft and Facebook. Well, there is always Amazon and Oracle :-) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] Delphi 10.4
Op 2020-04-11 om 14:45 schreef Sven Barth via fpc-other: 2: management operators for records, maybe also simple record inheritance to reuse e.g. a refcount record pattern Yay me, we got something incompatible again... 3: (also?) having some of the iOS refcounted classes system for the windows targets? I personally think the other way round. But we'll see... Yes, some people on the Delphi forum also pointed me to https://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/2018-october-Delphi-ARC-directions.html so it seems that ARC is dodo. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
[fpc-other] Delphi 10.4
Some early info about new Delphi 10.4 features https://community.idera.com/developer-tools/b/blog/posts/get-ready-for-the-10-4-beta-with-update-subscription 1 Language Server Protocol for Delphi 2 Language Enhancements: Managed Records 3 Unified memory management across all platforms my guesses: 1: no idea. 2: management operators for records, maybe also simple record inheritance to reuse e.g. a refcount record pattern 3: (also?) having some of the iOS refcounted classes system for the windows targets? ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] ARM is the future of desktop
Op 2020-07-04 om 23:14 schreef Sven Barth via fpc-other: Here is an interesting article by a ex-windows boss. He thinks that in a few years even desktops will be ARM and Intel will be residual. And obviously it will be a mayor problem to Microsoft, whose software is very tied to Intel platform. https://www.zdnet.com/article/ex-windows-boss-apples-arm-based-mac-will-be-the-ultimate-developer-pc/ Windows 10 nowadays supports both ARM and ARM64, so I see no problem there. And it is from Sinofsky, who is considered to be good in the tech department, but bad in the visionary department (he was resposible for the tanked Windows 8 "vision", and Microsofts failed ventures in the phone and tablet world) ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] PostgreSQL index tuning
Op 25-9-2021 om 16:00 schreef Graeme Geldenhuys via fpc-other: Does anybody know if there is a tool I could use to analyse queries to a PostgreSQL database, so I could tune it's performance. eg: detect table scans in the execution plan, suggest creating, dropping or altering indexes etc. MS SQL server comes with loads of tools and options to do this, but I'm fairly new to using PostgreSQL as the data store, so not sure what tools are out there. Any suggestions would me much appreciated. The default postgres admin too "pgadmin" seems to have some query analysis that yields plan insights according to https://www.pgadmin.org/docs/pgadmin4/5.2/query_tool.html ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] I thought it was going to get better, but no
On 28-4-2023 23:20, Nikolay Nikolov via fpc-other wrote: After reading this email that I am replying to here, and revisiting the #fpc logs, the only conclusion I can make is that Nikolay Nikolov == "Joanna". Are you joking? I actually smiled. Let's just say that what I see from Joanna doesn't resonate at all with knowing Nikolay IRL. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org https://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
