Re: [fpc-devel] gdb on amd64
I am investigating a crash of lazarus on the amd64 platfrom. Part of the backtrace looks like this: #18 0x00434ea0 in TAPPLICATION__RUN (this=Cannot access memory at address 0x8000ed18 ) at application.inc:980 Note the parameter of TApplication.Run is not shown, because of the invalid memory address. Is this normal (can't gdb handle this?) or does this indicate a bug in my program? Sounds like calling a method of an object that isn't properly initialised or is corrupted. It is a 32bit - 64bit conversion error. gdb converts a signed 32bit to as an unsigned 32bit to 64bit. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[fpc-devel] Range check error in cthreads (make debug)
If i compile rtl with debug info (make debug), then i get at start of my multithreaded app: An unhandled exception occurred at $08062B3C : ERangeError : Range check error $08062B3C CGETCURRENTTHREADID, line 310 of ../unix/cthreads.pp $0805ADAD GETCURRENTTHREADID, line 136 of /mnt/progs/devel/fpc/rtl/inc/thread.inc $08140367 COMMONINIT, line 1519 of /mnt/progs/devel/fpc/rtl/objpas/classes/classes.inc without debug info (make) it is ok. Linux, fpc from svn Petr -- Ing. Petr Kristan . EPOS PRO s.r.o., Bozeny Nemcove 2625, 530 02 Pardubice tel: +420 466335223Czech Republic (Eastern Europe) fax: +420 466510709 ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
RE: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
From: Gerhard Scholz Sent: woensdag 1 juni 2005 18:35 - Original Message - From: Marco van de Voort [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: FPC developers' list fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:50 PM Subject: Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion [big snip] multiple assignments: a := b := c := d := 0 ; etc. Same point. Totally useless. easier to read, especially in sequencies of variable initializations What is easier to read is a matter of taste. Being a pascal devel for years now, it takes time to decode a a := b := c := d := 0 line. There might be a ; inbeween which results in a complete different assignment. With such lines I've to read them over and over to see what is going on. Where a line like a := 0; b := 0; c := 0; d := 0; is clear to me. This also counts for the proposed c-isms. For me I prefere clarity above less typing (besides if you want to write realy short code, you sould use APL) Marc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
RE: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of listmember Maybe a few things should be borrowed from RemObjects Chrome, such as -- Class Contracts http://www.remobjects.com/page.asp?id={DFA00D71-D5A4-40A3-9FD0-251899EB30 D8} I like the 'require/ensure' aproach. It makes the code more robust and more debuggable, IMHO I think the checks you can do there are to limited. I also wonder what will happen if a require isn't met. Personally I don't want exeption in my released app. -- Generics http://www.remobjects.com/articles/?id={A1D08EE3-0D9E-4828-AFB3-B2C1E7721 86E} I am not sure if Generics could be done in FPC. There were some discussions about it here and AFAIK some are trying to implement. -- Virtual Properties and Events http://www.remobjects.com/page.asp?id={10E153AD-E05F-48CE-9CED-BCED5C9CDE 99} The examples given there are not very different of what is possible now. Make SetWith virtual and you have almost the same. What however would be nice is if you could override the getter or setter. Something like property Width write MySetWidth -- Enhanced Multicast Events http://www.remobjects.com/page.asp?id={CC9C4828-9E49-4C41-AFD9-0BFFA4E9C3 D3} This is not really new. You can implement it yourself like property OnChange: TNotifyList; and then OnChange.Add(Notifyproc) or OnChange.Remove(Notifyproc) Inline variable initializers, such as: [snip] var Integer1: Integer = 15; Boolean1: Boolean = False; String1: String = 'SOME TEXT'; Hmm.. sometimes usefull. You can put it as first lines in your constructor/codeblock, but keep it thogheter in say large classes can be handy. Marc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote: However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :- Vinzent. -- public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Jamie McCracken wrote: Marc Weustink wrote: What is easier to read is a matter of taste. Being a pascal devel for years now, it takes time to decode a a := b := c := d := 0 line. There might be a ; inbeween which results in a complete different assignment. With such lines I've to read them over and over to see what is going on. Where a line like a := 0; b := 0; c := 0; d := 0; is clear to me. This also counts for the proposed c-isms. For me I prefere clarity above less typing (besides if you want to write realy short code, you sould use APL) I totally agree with you in this case - we dont want or need cryptic c stlye syntax in any version of Pascal. However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. Ironically python is perhaps the most popular language on Linux and most of its syntax is derived from object pascal whereas pascal on linux is virtually non-existant. Of course Python is piss poor in both performance and memory usage but it does point the way to a revitalised pascal. Adopting less verbose but still clean and clear syntax ala python is IMHO the way to make Pascal great again. Consider the developer unfirendly nature of pascal/Delphi atm: 1) Forward declarations - they sux! Why should the developers have the burden of making the code totally sequential declaration wise. All other modern compilers dont need this. Sure your code might take a bit longer to compile but thats peanuts compare to the time saved in extra typing and reordering your code 2) I have touched on manual memory managaement of tobjects before so I wont rehash it here (in summary ref count tobjects and they should have good performance with c++ style exception handling). 3) loads of small and pointless additional syntax like EG for creating an object you should just be able to say: myobject.create; and not myobject := Tobject.create; also Begin..End blocks should IMO be replaced with python's indenting. Yeah I know this sounds like a hybrid pascal/python but I believe thats the way to go - marry Delphi's speed and component framework with less verbose python style syntax and you will have the best RAD language ever written. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel MyObject.Create is impossible with classes on the heap. You need to assign MyObject a pointer but you can't do that from within create. Forward declarations are IMHO required because otherwise the compiler would have to make additional passes(it does 3 AFAIK). Besides, they are seldom enough to be a problem. How does python handle modularity btw? ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote: However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :- Dont kid yourself - a lot of my fellow Delphi programmers have dumped it for C# already so it is really worrying for me espcially with borland being virtually bankrupt. Delphi as it is faces a bleak future so its looking increasingly like its time to modernise or die. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Jamie McCracken wrote: Marc Weustink wrote: What is easier to read is a matter of taste. Being a pascal devel for years now, it takes time to decode a a := b := c := d := 0 line. There might be a ; inbeween which results in a complete different assignment. With such lines I've to read them over and over to see what is going on. Where a line like a := 0; b := 0; c := 0; d := 0; is clear to me. This also counts for the proposed c-isms. For me I prefere clarity above less typing (besides if you want to write realy short code, you sould use APL) I totally agree with you in this case - we dont want or need cryptic c stlye syntax in any version of Pascal. However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with any python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) Ironically python is perhaps the most popular language on Linux and most of its syntax is derived from object pascal whereas pascal Well, I wonder which languages the kernel, X windows, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, Mozilla etc. use ;), definitively not python ... Python is a usuable scripting language but nothing more. on linux is virtually non-existant. The problem with pascal on linux was/is that there was no good compiler in the 90s for linux so a lot developers got lost. Of course Python is piss poor in both performance and memory usage but it does point the way to a revitalised pascal. Adopting less verbose but still clean and clear syntax ala python is IMHO the way to make Pascal great again. I wonder if Python couldn't revive Fortran with it's strange formatting rules. Consider the developer unfirendly nature of pascal/Delphi atm: 1) Forward declarations - they sux! Why should the developers have the burden of making the code totally sequential declaration wise. All other modern compilers dont need this. C++ is still the number one language and it requires it. Sure your code might take a bit longer to compile but thats peanuts compare to the time saved in extra typing and reordering your code Did you ever work in a team? Then you know why ordering declarations is a good practice because reading non sequential declarations is hard. 2) I have touched on manual memory managaement of tobjects before so I wont rehash it here (in summary ref count tobjects and they should have good performance with c++ style exception handling). Good performance like python ;)? ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel MyObject.Create is impossible with classes on the heap. You need to assign MyObject a pointer but you can't do that from within create. sorry myobject is the pointer so a better example would be : var strlist : Tstringlist; strlist.create; This should be easy as you know the pointer type. Forward declarations are IMHO required because otherwise the compiler would have to make additional passes(it does 3 AFAIK). They are not required in a multipass compiler. If you cant resolve a symbol on a single pass you can do so on a subsequent one. Besides, they are seldom enough to be a problem. Pain in the arse they are. Its annoying and makes use of the code explorer a neccsity when dealing with large classes. Its a total waste of my time. How does python handle modularity btw? WHat do you mean? Im a Delphi programmer not a python one (though Ive done bits and pieces in python) but I do envy its less verbose syntax as its just as clean and clear. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:22, Jamie McCracken wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote: However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :- Dont kid yourself - a lot of my fellow Delphi programmers have dumped it for C# already so it is really worrying for me espcially with borland being virtually bankrupt. Delphi as it is faces a bleak future so its looking increasingly like its time to modernise or die. Yeah. Flies. Shit. They keep telling me the same about Ada. Still, I am much more productive than any of my fellow programmers who are doing things in C, Java, or Python. While they are still debugging and chasing NullPointerExceptions and such stuff, I already implemented the next needed feature. I can't even remember when was the last time I actually needed a debugger. Vinzent. -- public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jamie McCracken wrote: Marc Weustink wrote: What is easier to read is a matter of taste. Being a pascal devel for years now, it takes time to decode a a := b := c := d := 0 line. There might be a ; inbeween which results in a complete different assignment. With such lines I've to read them over and over to see what is going on. Where a line like a := 0; b := 0; c := 0; d := 0; is clear to me. This also counts for the proposed c-isms. For me I prefere clarity above less typing (besides if you want to write realy short code, you sould use APL) I totally agree with you in this case - we dont want or need cryptic c stlye syntax in any version of Pascal. However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. Ironically python is perhaps the most popular language on Linux and most of its syntax is derived from object pascal whereas pascal on linux is virtually non-existant. Of course Python is piss poor in both performance and memory usage but it does point the way to a revitalised pascal. Adopting less verbose but still clean and clear syntax ala python is IMHO the way to make Pascal great again. I beg to differ. Recently I rewrote a python program (on linux). The pascal version was shorter and much clearer to understand. The python syntax is a horror as far as I'm concerned. What makes python interesting are the many classes it offers by default to perform standard tasks, especially in the text treatment department; regular expression stuff etc. The same goes for most languages; Mostly it's not the language syntax that determines the productivity factor; it's the number of standard available routines. Quabbling about being able to type a:=b:=c:=d; is beside the question. If your productivity depends on that, you're either in the wrong business, or you are using the wrong kind of editor. A good IDE/Editor has tools to make typing less cumbersome. In the company where I work, 4 languages are in use: Delphi, VB, C++ and PHP. In order of descreasing productivity they are rated as follows: - Delphi - PHP - VB - C++ The order of VB/PHP was the most surprising for me; but that can maybe be explained by the kind of app the language is used for. Pascal is a language that allows you to develop in many styles, with as much or as little optimization as you want, and all along it keeps your code readable, which is very important when you work in team and you need to read other people's code frequently. To see what I mean, try reading this little 'gem': int a[1817];main(z,p,q,r){for(p=80;q+p-80;p-=2*a[p])for(z=9;z--;)q=3(r=time(0) +r*57)/7,q=q?q-1?q-2?1-p%79?-1:0:p%79-77?1:0:p1659?79:0:p158?-79:0,q?!a[p+q*2 ]?a[p+=a[p+=q]=q]=q:0:0;for(;q++-1817;)printf(q%79?%c:%c\n, #[!a[q-1]]);} (better yet, run it) Michael. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:22:55 +0100 Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :- Dont kid yourself - a lot of my fellow Delphi programmers have dumped it for C# already so it is really worrying for me espcially with borland C# is very much like delphi, not at all like Python. What were their reasons to switch ? Python is hard to read, especially if multiple blocks are closed at once, then it's hard to see what block a line belongs to (because of missing 'end' or '}'). I also don't like the magic. For example the 'mystrings.create;' example you mentioned, it's *totally* not consistent with regular syntax: mystrings.create means call TStringList.Create on the object pointed to by the mystrings variable. Micha ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Florian Klaempfl wrote: I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with any python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) You must be a damn fast typer then :) Ironically python is perhaps the most popular language on Linux and most of its syntax is derived from object pascal whereas pascal Well, I wonder which languages the kernel, X windows, GNOME, KDE, OpenOffice, Mozilla etc. use ;), definitively not python ... Python is a usuable scripting language but nothing more. I agree but nevertheless it has become popular for desktop applications. Ubuntu and Fedora now uses it exclusively for filling in the blanks in their gnome desktops. on linux is virtually non-existant. The problem with pascal on linux was/is that there was no good compiler in the 90s for linux so a lot developers got lost. Gnu pascal? 1) Forward declarations - they sux! Why should the developers have the burden of making the code totally sequential declaration wise. All other modern compilers dont need this. C++ is still the number one language and it requires it. yes but that aint modern! C# and python do not. Sure your code might take a bit longer to compile but thats peanuts compare to the time saved in extra typing and reordering your code Did you ever work in a team? Then you know why ordering declarations is a good practice because reading non sequential declarations is hard. Yes i have worked in small teams and that was never an issue. Of course crazy ordering is harmful but any reasonable ordering is readable. 2) I have touched on manual memory managaement of tobjects before so I wont rehash it here (in summary ref count tobjects and they should have good performance with c++ style exception handling). Good performance like python ;)? If that were the case then yeah it would sux (however pythons performance is due to bien a bytecode interpreter and dynamic typing neither of which we need in pascal). jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. Ironically python is perhaps the most popular language on Linux and most of its syntax is derived from object pascal whereas pascal on linux is virtually non-existant. Of course Python is piss poor in both performance and memory usage but it does point the way to a revitalised pascal. Adopting less verbose but still clean and clear syntax ala python is IMHO the way to make Pascal great again. I beg to differ. Recently I rewrote a python program (on linux). The pascal version was shorter and much clearer to understand. The python syntax is a horror as far as I'm concerned. Im not saying make pascal behave like python so if you were doing some weird dynamic stuff with python thats fair enough. ALl im sayting is theres no harm in replacing some of the verbose syntax with less verbose ones provided they dont harm the clarity of the code. I love delphi but find its verbosity a pain in some circumstances. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Jamie McCracken wrote: Florian Klaempfl wrote: I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with any python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) You must be a damn fast typer then :) I teached myself typing with 10 fingers, but typing is not the issue with auto completion etc. Show me a python ide which can do the same tricks as lazarus or delphi. The problem with pascal on linux was/is that there was no good compiler in the 90s for linux so a lot developers got lost. Gnu pascal? We were talking about good :) 1) Forward declarations - they sux! Why should the developers have the burden of making the code totally sequential declaration wise. All other modern compilers dont need this. C++ is still the number one language and it requires it. yes but that aint modern! C# and python do not. Modern doesn't mean necessarily good ... Good performance like python ;)? If that were the case then yeah it would sux (however pythons performance is due to bien a bytecode interpreter and dynamic typing neither of which we need in pascal). Ref. counting etc. eats time because you need good garbage collection to detect cycles and other ugly stuff. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:04, Jamie McCracken wrote: However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :- Both in fact as they are directly correlated. The studies show that in high level languages (C nothwithstanding) there is very evident but simple correlation -- number of programmer errors per language construct (typically in not obfuscated code it's very close to the number of not empty non comment source lines) is independent of the language. But languages do differ significantly wrt. how many constructs are required to solve particular programming problems. C++ (pre stl) was worst there, Python, Perl likes were the best, Java was not that bad but still about 30% worse thatn Python (C++ was 100% i.e 2x worse). The biggest boost to effectivanes was bring by introducing automated memory management (i.e. getting rid of explicit memory freeing). So even languages with ugly C-ish syntax like Perl the awful can beat otherwise elegant clean languages. Hence probably the greaytest impact on Objective Pascal productioveness would come from allowing programmers to declare classes like self managing (self freeing, not needeing explicit destructions). rgds -- Sebastian Kaliszewski ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:38, Jamie McCracken wrote: Florian Klaempfl wrote: I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with any python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) You must be a damn fast typer then :) No, that's a common misunderstanding (especially amongst C-programmers). What matters is designing und understanding the code, not writing it. I spend less than 10% of my time at work in actually _writing_ code, so even if someone can type in his/her code twice as fast, the maximum (s)he would gain would be five percent in overall performance. Vinzent. -- public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Micha Nelissen wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:22:55 +0100 Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :- Dont kid yourself - a lot of my fellow Delphi programmers have dumped it for C# already so it is really worrying for me espcially with borland C# is very much like delphi, not at all like Python. What were their reasons to switch ? Because its so close to Delphi and they have switched because they found it more productive. No forward declarations, garbage collection and a richer framework has made them switch to the dark side. We need to fight back! Python is hard to read, especially if multiple blocks are closed at once, then it's hard to see what block a line belongs to (because of missing 'end' or '}'). not true because of the indenting (use bigger indents!). Im not saying python is great I just envy *some* of its shorter syntax and it would be so cool if Delphi/pascal did likewise - we could blow all these inferior languages away. I also don't like the magic. For example the 'mystrings.create;' example you mentioned, it's *totally* not consistent with regular syntax: mystrings.create means call TStringList.Create on the object pointed to by the mystrings variable. Well pascal in the only mainstream langugae that does that - I dont see the pont and it aint magic. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Florian Klaempfl wrote: If that were the case then yeah it would sux (however pythons performance is due to bien a bytecode interpreter and dynamic typing neither of which we need in pascal). Ref. counting etc. eats time because you need good garbage collection to detect cycles and other ugly stuff. There should be no cycles on TObjects so we dont need performance sapping code to detect them. TCOmponents are likely to have cycles as they tend to link to each other but then they would not be ref counted as they are parent/child owner managed anyway jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:38, Jamie McCracken wrote: Florian Klaempfl wrote: I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with any python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) You must be a damn fast typer then :) No, that's a common misunderstanding (especially amongst C-programmers). What matters is designing und understanding the code, not writing it. I spend less than 10% of my time at work in actually _writing_ code, so even if someone can type in his/her code twice as fast, the maximum (s)he would gain would be five percent in overall performance. you are missing the point! Whather you can implement something faster in another language is not the issue. I am arguing for less verbose syntax without decreasing the clarity of the code in delphi/pascal and that is logically gonna improve productivity without taking anything away. jamie. Vinzent. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 14:52:13 +0100 Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: C# is very much like delphi, not at all like Python. What were their reasons to switch ? Because its so close to Delphi and they have switched because they found it more productive. No forward declarations, garbage collection I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ? Garbage collection is largely no issue when using the Owner concept in TComponent, using TObjectList, etc. and a richer framework has made them switch to the dark side. We need to fight back! Ok, but richer framework simply needs people adding packages and useful units to freepascal :-). Python is hard to read, especially if multiple blocks are closed at once, then it's hard to see what block a line belongs to (because of missing 'end' or '}'). not true because of the indenting (use bigger indents!). Im not saying Bigger indents cause the text to go too wide. More functions also help, I agree. python is great I just envy *some* of its shorter syntax and it would Ok, some, but not this one ? I also don't like the magic. For example the 'mystrings.create;' example you mentioned, it's *totally* not consistent with regular syntax: mystrings.create means call TStringList.Create on the object pointed to by the mystrings variable. Well pascal in the only mainstream langugae that does that - I dont see the pont and it aint magic. Sorry, the only language that does what ? Micha ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Jamie McCracken wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:38, Jamie McCracken wrote: Florian Klaempfl wrote: I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with any python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) You must be a damn fast typer then :) No, that's a common misunderstanding (especially amongst C-programmers). What matters is designing und understanding the code, not writing it. I spend less than 10% of my time at work in actually _writing_ code, so even if someone can type in his/her code twice as fast, the maximum (s)he would gain would be five percent in overall performance. you are missing the point! Whather you can implement something faster in another language is not the issue. I am arguing for less verbose syntax without decreasing the clarity of the code in delphi/pascal and that is logically gonna improve productivity without taking anything away. This is only 'logical' if the hypothesis productivity is inversely related to the syntax verbosity is correct. I question the correctness of the hypothesis, and I assume, so does Florian... Michael. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: I don't consider Ojbect Pascal to be verbose at all, so it's not an issue for me... Well I will typically spend about 25% of my development time with forward declarations, doing loads of try finaly blocks to free memory and other things instead of implementing my application. jamie. Michael. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 14:01, Jamie McCracken wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: What matters is designing und understanding the code, not writing it. I spend less than 10% of my time at work in actually _writing_ code, so even if someone can type in his/her code twice as fast, the maximum (s)he would gain would be five percent in overall performance. you are missing the point! No, I don't. I'm damn sure what I am talking about. Whather you can implement something faster in another language is not the issue. Right. The issue is if you can make it work, i.e. how long you have to test and debug it and how long someone needs to understand it when he comes to that code later (that's called maintenance, I think). I am arguing for less verbose syntax without decreasing the clarity of the code in delphi/pascal Which is an almost impossible task. Sure you can tweak it here and there, but it would _at best_ simplify the task of writing the code in the first place. You are just missing the remaining 98% of the development cycle of a typical medium to large software project. You won't gain anything there, even if and /only if/ you could manage to simplify some syntax without having *any* impact on understanding the code later. (BTW, Ada is even more verbose than Pascal and for the things I'm doing it is still /more/ productive. I'm talking about error rates and such stuff, not how much time spending in front of the monitor typing something that *may* work, if you just debug it long enough). and that is logically gonna improve productivity without taking anything away. It would, if you could actually manage to accomplish that task. But as I tried to point out, those 5% don't matter. You can lose *much* more and much easily on a bad design. 90% of software development costs is testing. And then it is much better to actually be able to _read_ and _understand_ the code instead of writing it. Vinzent. -- public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Micha Nelissen wrote: I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ? More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me anything useful in return. Garbage collection is largely no issue when using the Owner concept in TComponent, using TObjectList, etc. True and thats why I suggested ref counting Tobjects only so that no manual memory management is required. I tend to make heavy use of TList, Tstringlist and TFilestream objects so I cant do everything with tcomponents alas. and a richer framework has made them switch to the dark side. We need to fight back! Ok, but richer framework simply needs people adding packages and useful units to freepascal :-). Python is hard to read, especially if multiple blocks are closed at once, then it's hard to see what block a line belongs to (because of missing 'end' or '}'). not true because of the indenting (use bigger indents!). Im not saying Bigger indents cause the text to go too wide. More functions also help, I agree. python is great I just envy *some* of its shorter syntax and it would Ok, some, but not this one ? Well typing begin..end all over the place isn't a lot of fun :( Especially as Im gonna have to indent them as well just to make em readable. So yeah it seems they are more pointless syntax bloat. I also don't like the magic. For example the 'mystrings.create;' example you mentioned, it's *totally* not consistent with regular syntax: mystrings.create means call TStringList.Create on the object pointed to by the mystrings variable. Well pascal in the only mainstream langugae that does that - I dont see the pont and it aint magic. Sorry, the only language that does what ? var strlist : TStringlist; strlist := Tstringlist.create; I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the creation process? jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 14:24, Jamie McCracken wrote: Well I will typically spend about 25% of my development time with forward declarations, doing loads of try finaly blocks to free memory and other things instead of implementing my application. I typically spend 80% of my development time in *thinking* about what I should do, 10% in writing the code, 5% in showing that it works and 5% in drinking coffee to enhance the productivity of the first 80%. Well, of course, this is a slight exaggeration. Vinzent. -- public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 14:01, Jamie McCracken wrote: Vinzent Hoefler wrote: What matters is designing und understanding the code, not writing it. I spend less than 10% of my time at work in actually _writing_ code, so even if someone can type in his/her code twice as fast, the maximum (s)he would gain would be five percent in overall performance. you are missing the point! No, I don't. I'm damn sure what I am talking about. So am I. My point is not changing the language so that it incurs additional maintenance or is harder to read or harder to fix bugs or make bugs more likely. In fact its the complete opposite. My point is to to reduce or remove *redundant* syntax that serves no useful or productive purpose (to the programmer). Forward declarations are redundant - they exist purely for the benefit of the compiler. Begin..End is redundant - you have to indent them to make em readable anyways. manual memory management of tobjects is redundant as you can get good performance with ref counting tobjects. All in all the changes would mean you spend more of your time implementing your application rather than typing loads of redundant code. Maintenance is easier as their is less redundancy. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:31:51 +0100 Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Micha Nelissen wrote: I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ? More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me anything useful in return. Please show me a piece of code where they are in the way. Code bloat? They don't cost anything in the executable. python is great I just envy *some* of its shorter syntax and it would Ok, some, but not this one ? Well typing begin..end all over the place isn't a lot of fun :( Have you done maintenance yet of other people's code ? Especially as Im gonna have to indent them as well just to make em readable. So yeah it seems they are more pointless syntax bloat. They are not pointless to me: they indicate clear structure, but we may simply differ in opinion here. Sorry, the only language that does what ? var strlist : TStringlist; strlist := Tstringlist.create; I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the creation process? In C++: TStringList strlist; strlist = new TStringList; How is that shorter ? Micha ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Micha Nelissen wrote: On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:31:51 +0100 Jamie McCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Micha Nelissen wrote: I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ? More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me anything useful in return. Please show me a piece of code where they are in the way. Code bloat? They don't cost anything in the executable. thats not what I meant! I mean its source code bloat to me especially when trying to follow code with large classes in it. python is great I just envy *some* of its shorter syntax and it would Ok, some, but not this one ? Well typing begin..end all over the place isn't a lot of fun :( Have you done maintenance yet of other people's code ? Especially as Im gonna have to indent them as well just to make em readable. So yeah it seems they are more pointless syntax bloat. They are not pointless to me: they indicate clear structure, but we may simply differ in opinion here. But its the indenting that gives the structure. If i used begin end blocks without indenting there would be no clear structure - it would be a mess! Sorry, the only language that does what ? var strlist : TStringlist; strlist := Tstringlist.create; I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the creation process? In C++: TStringList strlist; strlist = new TStringList; How is that shorter ? okay but its still redundant. Why does the compiler need to have it spelt out twice? Why cant the compiler deduce that as the pointer is declared as TStringlist therefore it creates a TStringList? jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 14:44, Jamie McCracken wrote: My point is to to reduce or remove *redundant* syntax that serves no useful or productive purpose (to the programmer). Well applied redundancy is a good thing. Forward declarations are redundant - they exist purely for the benefit of the compiler. IBTD. Begin..End is redundant - you have to indent them to make em readable anyways. No. This makes the code more readable like normal english text. It states much more clearly what it intents, at least much more than just indenting or putting curly braces around it. manual memory management of tobjects is redundant as you can get good performance with ref counting tobjects. That can be a point, yes. But it is somehow not related to any syntax. All in all the changes would mean you spend more of your time implementing your application rather than typing loads of redundant code. Typing is only a very small part of the development cycle. Performance measures indicate that rhe average programmer delivers about 2 to 20 lines per code per day (measured over the whole development cycles, this of course includes testing, too). Compare these with the lines of code you *could* write in eight hours if you would just write them and you see how much you could optimize away there if you'd actually manage to double the performance. Maintenance is easier as their is less redundancy. It simply depends on the kind of redundancy. For instance, type and var keywords are just redundant, the compiler could figure it out by itself, still they serve a useful purpose. Vinzent. -- public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 15:54:54 +0200 Sebastian Kaliszewski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The studies show that in high level languages (C nothwithstanding) there is very evident but simple correlation -- number of programmer errors per language construct (typically in not obfuscated code it's very close to the number of not empty non comment source lines) is independent of the language. But languages do differ significantly wrt. how many constructs are required to solve particular programming problems. A correlation of things that are independent ? Then there is no correlation ? Micha ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
RE: [fpc-devel] type discussion
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jamie McCracken Sent: donderdag 2 juni 2005 16:32 var strlist : TStringlist; strlist := Tstringlist.create; I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the creation process? What to do with virtual constructors or variables of a lower class ? ie. var strlist: TStrings; strlist := Tstringlist.create; or var strlist: TStrings; listclass: TStringsClass; listclass := TStringlist; strlist := listclass.create; Marc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: This is only 'logical' if the hypothesis productivity is inversely related to the syntax verbosity is correct. And it's not. What is correct is productivity is directly related to the number of separate language constructs developer has to put in program to acomplish the task So, for example, need to put separate finally block to free memory means additional few constructs. Or lack of standard libary supplied container apropriate for a task requires programmer to develop his/her own or to adapt something less usable. Geeintg rid of end in begin / end wont help much (as they can;t be separated, they count as single construct). So here is some little idea which seems to me Pascalish enough to be considered: how about new keyword: local Class variable declared local will be automatically freed upon every exit from the scope (i.e. something along the lines of implicit try/finally for some builtin types). And there are possibly few variants of the thing: 1a. var mySth: local TSomething; begin mySth := TSomething.create(); ... end; 1b. var mySth: TSomething local; begin mySth := TSomething.create(); ... end; 2. local mySth: TSomethin; begin mySth := TSomething.create(); ... end; So in 1. local is just a type modifier (in case of 1a it might make sense to allow it also in type declaration, hence allowing allways local classes -- but I'm not convinced it's desirable, and it definiately requires more work on compiler side). 1b. is like some other storage modifiers like absolute (and might be prefered). 2. is substituting local instead of var for local objects -- so such local object declarations stand out more int the code, but it's also further away from standard Pascal. Is it worth something? rgds -- Sebastian Kaliszewski ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Sorry, the only language that does what ? var strlist : TStringlist; strlist := Tstringlist.create; I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the creation process? In C++: TStringList strlist; strlist = new TStringList; How is that shorter ? okay but its still redundant. Why does the compiler need to have it spelt out twice? Why cant the compiler deduce that as the pointer is declared as TStringlist therefore it creates a TStringList? Because the pointer might not be. Polymorphism, you know? :-) -- Regards, Christian Iversen ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 15:16, Uberto Barbini wrote: If the goal is this, I'd prefear a way to declare objects autocreated: varauto: strlist: TStringList; begin //some stuff end; [...] It could be a problem to pass parameters to the constructor. Yes, exactly. So why bother the extra complexity? You still need the real thing, so for consistency it's better to stay with it only. Something like this you can see in Java: In the constructor of a derived class you always need to call the constructor of the base class in the first place. So, to simplify the task, the compiler does the magic for you, if there is a default constructor that has no parameters. Great. But the virtually same code just does not compile when there is no such thing as a parameterless constructor and you keep asking you why it does not f***ing compile. Until you read the 500 pages of the JLS and then *know* that the compiler does stupidly magic tricks for you. It can even become much more confusing if you have more than a single constructor. I don't think, this makes anything easier, less error-prone, whatever. It just confuses people. Vinzent. -- public key: http://www.t-domaingrabbing.ch/publickey.asc ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: But the compiler needs to check many things: 1. Initialize the S with Nil. 2. Check that S is assigned only once during the lifetime of the procedure. This is actually a bigger restriction than you might think, unless you want to introduce reference counting. 3. Put a try/finally block and generate a call to S.Destroy at the end. It must also catch any errors that may occur when s.destroy is called. For classes, this danger is very real; For ansistrings it is not (well, very small) 4. It cannot assign S to anything, since that could mean that the lifetime of S could be prolonged. The alternative is again again ref. counting. This is not so easy, and reference counting is always a mess... Well you already have the code for ref counting for com objects so its not like its a ton of work and therefore we dont need to worry about your four points. Adding C++ style exception handling should make it fast enough too (ok that is some work). jamie. Michael. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 15:16, Uberto Barbini wrote: If the goal is this, I'd prefear a way to declare objects autocreated: varauto: strlist: TStringList; begin //some stuff end; [...] It could be a problem to pass parameters to the constructor. Yes, exactly. So why bother the extra complexity? You still need the real thing, so for consistency it's better to stay with it only. Thats why I proposed a month back in my modernising pascal thread to implement things like a stringlist as a base type container (like pyhton does with lists, dicts etc). This would then be dynamically allocated and ref counted. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Marco van de Voort wrote: Some of these target functionality (specially in the linking section) might require restructures related to * introduction of an internal linker for some core platforms (no more LD) * Rewrite of module (unit) handling Yes, these would be great, IMHO. For the rest, improve RTL/FCL compability and extend them in general, and of course fixbugs. Beside of compatibility towards Delphi or MacPascal or others FPC should be open to other modifications/extensions (maybe Delphi one day copies FC a bt :-), and not always the other way round) Maybe a few things should be borrowed from RemObjects Chrome, such as -- Class Contracts http://www.remobjects.com/page.asp?id={DFA00D71-D5A4-40A3-9FD0-251899EB30D8} I like the 'require/ensure' aproach. Glorified asserts. This is inventing syntax for marketing reasons. It makes the code more robust and more debuggable, IMHO Nope. It just is a limited form of assert with special syntax. Definitely does not mark the trival syntax test. -- Generics http://www.remobjects.com/articles/?id={A1D08EE3-0D9E-4828-AFB3-B2C1E772186E} I am not sure if Generics could be done in FPC. Probably yes, however it will not be easy. IMHO Generics/templates are definitely on the list, but don't expect it anywhere soon, unless there is massive help. -- Virtual Properties and Events http://www.remobjects.com/page.asp?id={10E153AD-E05F-48CE-9CED-BCED5C9CDE99} Understandable. However lots of performance issues. One could mitigate some of these by e.g. requiring virtual properties to only use static methods and adding optimizations. RemObject/.NET probably either don't care about speed, and/or have some global optimalisations that makes adding this kind of stuff not to hurtful. Probably a bit of both. IMHO not a definite no, it would be either unoptimal, or a lot of work. -- Enhanced Multicast Events http://www.remobjects.com/page.asp?id={CC9C4828-9E49-4C41-AFD9-0BFFA4E9C3D3} Inline variable initializers, such as: type TSomethingElse = class(TSomething) private FInteger: Integer = 15; FBoolean: Boolean = False; FString: String = 'SOME TEXT'; {etc} protected public published end; Can be done otherwise (simply init it). - Syntactic sugar. Similarly, for function Something(...): Boolean = False; var Integer1: Integer = 15; Boolean1: Boolean = False; String1: String = 'SOME TEXT'; begin end; Useless IMHO. Equal to above (initialising in syntax what can be inited normally) Procedure Something(Out AInteger: Integer = 12; ); var Integer1: Integer = 15; Boolean1: Boolean = False; String1: String = 'SOME TEXT'; begin end; Same. Don't even add to productivy a way to write integer constants in any base, not only binary/octal/hexadecimal (not so important, but easy to implement) Rarely used. Specially since more than base 36 becomes a notational problem. However it has been brought up before. If someone contributes the code, why not. It does not hurt, IMHO. Because the more features, the more involved maintainance of the compiler becomes. So keep that work for features that are worth it. I don't like this one, but it might already exist (in mac mode), since ISO Paslla has this. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Vinzent Hoefler wrote: On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:54, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote: No, they aren't (or let me put it this way: It depends on what you measure). For instance, studies indicate that there are ten times more errors code in C code then in Ada code once you've delivered the software. If you didn't notice I wrote C nothwithstanding. C is far away from modern high level languages (and also many older than it but hight level languages). The studies show that in high level languages (C nothwithstanding) there is very evident but simple correlation -- number of programmer errors per language construct (typically in not obfuscated code it's very close to the number of not empty non comment source lines) is independent of the language. You must have read different studies. :) Certainly. Those I read were about mainsteream software development not niche life critical realitime systems. The study was measuring error rate in some typical and rather simple prgramming task coded in varius languages by varius programmers. Correlation found was clear -- number of bugs per 1kloc were constatant and independent of the language. The difference was that the same task could be coded in some languages using significantly lesser number of lines. A while ago Lockheed Martin switched to SPARK code (which is a statically proven version of Ada) and they claimed this saved them about 80% of development cost compared with former projects of the same size (and we're talking about a flight control system of five million lines of code here). Two things: 1. They'd better claim they got significant gains or someone should be fired for wasting money. IOW I take all such corporation made studies not with a grain but with a shuffle of salt. 2. You're talking about complex life-critical realtime system, not mainstream software. In such system the cost of bugs is many orders of magnitude higher than in mainstream. Cost structure of such projectes differs stronly from mainstream programming. C++ (pre stl) was worst there, Python, Perl likes were the best, Java was not that bad but still about 30% worse thatn Python (C++ was 100% i.e 2x worse). What did they actually measure? Which languages did they compare. The list above is all (except Python) more or less C-ish or even worse syntax. There was a bunch of popular languages (don't remember them all), C like were C++, Java Perl. Others certainly were not. The biggest boost to effectivanes was bring by introducing automated memory management (i.e. getting rid of explicit memory freeing). Which is something you definitely don't want in large scale realtime systems. But FPC is useless in such systems as well. Besides lack of convincing argumentation about compiler correctness, you need real time guarantees wrt allocations and other library stuff (which FPC does not provide). So even languages with ugly C-ish syntax like Perl the awful can beat otherwise elegant clean languages. Of course they can under certain circumstances. Just as a bubble sort can beat a quick sort algorithm if you feed the right input. If you'd use not the naive version of Qsort, but something more elaborate then you'd have to caerefully craft contrived input to cause it to work badly. But naive Qsort will work terribly on really common input. Those examples were real code not some contrived stuff. Hence probably the greaytest impact on Objective Pascal productioveness would come from allowing programmers to declare classes like self managing (self freeing, not needeing explicit destructions). Maybe, yes. But I'm old school. I like to handle memory myself. Well, I met some people who needed 'full controll' so they wnated to code in assembly. And I still need less than 2 MB while a Java VM is still loading its 100 MB foot print into memory. ;- Java is a different story, but GC overhead is not that bad in some better languages (2-3x). And performance seems to be unaffected: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=alllang=fpascallang2=ocamlsort=fullcpu Here comes Pascal (FPC) vs Ocaml (hybrid functional/imperative language with OO). Ocaml is significantly faster although it havily uses GC. Ocaml code is significantly shorter too (they can be coded in significanly lesser amount of lines). rgds -- Sebastian Kaliszewski ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:38, Jamie McCracken wrote: Florian Klaempfl wrote: I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with any python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) You must be a damn fast typer then :) No, that's a common misunderstanding (especially amongst C-programmers). What matters is designing und understanding the code, not writing it. I spend less than 10% of my time at work in actually _writing_ code, so even if someone can type in his/her code twice as fast, the maximum (s)he would gain would be five percent in overall performance. I doubt you would get that high. A educated typist can get over 120 keys/min (and that is already lowered because of many shifts, with real text it). I don't think the avg line of code is longer than 20 chars. That is 360 lines/hr. SLOC, not code with whitespace, and not counting generated code with codetools. Most of the time of entry is spent in navigating and searching, not code adding. And then data entry is only a small part overall. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Marco van de Voort wrote: Also, I simply don't see the use of it. Borland Pascal's have the forward directive for those really few cases where it is annoying. Also, forward declarations mostly mean shitty code / design. Atleast in my case it does. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:54, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote: probably the greaytest impact on Objective Pascal productioveness would come from allowing programmers to declare classes like self managing (self freeing, not needeing explicit destructions). Maybe, yes. But I'm old school. I like to handle memory myself. And I still need less than 2 MB while a Java VM is still loading its 100 MB foot print into memory. ;- I think the time spent doing the manual compilation is overestimated, and the time problem solving in automatic allocation is underestimated. How many Java programmers routine set references to NIL ? Really a lot... ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Begin..End is redundant - you have to indent them to make em readable anyways. No. This makes the code more readable like normal english text. It states much more clearly what it intents, at least much more than just indenting or putting curly braces around it. Not every syntax is about minimizing code or readability. Some are also to simply simplify parsing (and that is about compiler developer, but to make the language more internally consistent) and avoid long lookaheads. These things combined also improve quality of error messages a lot. manual memory management of tobjects is redundant as you can get good performance with ref counting tobjects. For trivial programs: yes. However FPC is not designed for short scripting programs. Maintenance is easier as their is less redundancy. It simply depends on the kind of redundancy. For instance, type and var keywords are just redundant, the compiler could figure it out by itself, still they serve a useful purpose. See above. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Marco van de Voort wrote: I think the time spent doing the manual compilation is overestimated, and the time problem solving in automatic allocation is underestimated. How many Java programmers routine set references to NIL ? Really a lot... This only shows the implementation (and std library design) is bad (and that's true at least to java 1.4) rgds -- Sebastian Kaliszewski ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: This is only 'logical' if the hypothesis productivity is inversely related to the syntax verbosity is correct. And it's not. What is correct is productivity is directly related to the number of separate language constructs developer has to put in program to acomplish the task True. But the problem is that the task is not a constant. _If_ you really try to exploit this feature, and increase your programming speed (by not having to track object age and owner), you will have to deal with irregularties in deallocation (GC storms), null pointer exceptions etc. Or lack of standard libary supplied container apropriate for a task requires programmer to develop his/her own or to adapt something less usable. Partially true yes. However the only reasonable solution for that is generics I think. So here is some little idea which seems to me Pascalish enough to be considered: how about new keyword: local Class variable declared local will be automatically freed upon every exit from the scope (i.e. something along the lines of implicit try/finally for some builtin types). No. Inconsequent. I think you are totally on the wrong track if you want to try to solve this with language. There are only two solutions : 1) go fully automated 2) have only the minimum on base automated types (e.g. strings, I don't count variants, since they are for a specific purpose) Any patchy solutions will only go against this. Most allocations aren't limited to a simple scope anyway. Since not everything is an object, there is a lot less object creation going on. Even dynamic arrays were somewhat doubtfull, but finally mostly added because of Delphi compat. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Michael Van Canneyt wrote: This is not so easy, and reference counting is always a mess... Well you already have the code for ref counting for com objects so its not like its a ton of work and therefore we dont need to worry about your four points. Adding C++ style exception handling should make it fast enough too (ok that is some work). No it won't. The ref counting is expensive. Test e.g. speeds with Decal vs an own implementation on Delphi. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
The difference was that the same task could be coded in some languages using significantly lesser number of lines. But that doesn't necessarily equal to less overall time. Also specially the size of the testing code pieces. The troubles typically only start when the program grows larger. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
L505 wrote: | Yeah I know this sounds like a hybrid Pascal/python but I believe thats | the way to go - marry Delphi's speed and component framework with less | verbose python style syntax and you will have the best RAD language ever | written. | You are asking to reinvent python. If I were you, I'd just look into finding a python compiler. Everything you say points to the fact that you like the way python is laid out. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with different taste. No not at all. I dont want python but I would like to borrow some of its more concise syntax to make delphi less verbose thats all. Python is way too flawed with its grossly inefficient dynamic typing to ever be good for building general purpose applications. I'll see if I can create a modern dialect and integrate it into FPC... Any documents/info on how the compiler is laid out would be most appreciated. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
This only shows the implementation (and std library design) is bad (and that's true at least to java 1.4) I hear this from nearly any language with automated allocation (C#, Python, Perl, Java). The concept is simple and attractive, the practice seems to be different. I'm not a grear fan of them, but managed objects are indeed very useful for modelling business applications. But they don't make sense for system classes, so all in all I'm against them. Some OPF like InstantObjects offer a kinda of them, and I think this is a good compromize. Bye Uberto ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
| | | I'am a poor delphi programmer, didn't use it for years, but I bet with | any | python programmer that I create any application faster than him :) | | | You must be a damn fast typer then :) Sometimes it's which keys are near the home key. I don't care if { is shorter than begin, because { requires the shift key and finger strain. Plus, I always convert { into begin of code block in my mind anyway. I rarely find that fast typing helps my coding. It sure helps when writing emails.. or when doing bulk operations on big amounts of code. But when creating code, usually you have to stop and think.. and fast typing is useless. It helps when you are typing comments for the code. Pressing things like End and the arrow keys takes my hand off the home keys, and this cramps up my coding thought. But it's never the typing speed that helps my productivity when writing code. Just comments and bulk operations on code that was already written, that is now being changed. What I find that takes more time then the typing, is running to the manual trying to figure out what this cryptic thing does, or what parameter goes where. For example, if you set(red,edit) how do you know it isn't set(edit,red)? So in php when I was using a text editor.. I didn't have code completion and I always had to look things up. Or, even with code completion, you still have to look up more detailed descriptions of what the parameters are. But it's not the typing that costs me time. What also takes more time than the typing of code is writing comments for the code. Any language requires comments for the code, so there would be no advantage for any language there. Comments are comments. Lars ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
listmember wrote: Inline variable initializers, such as: ... function Something(...): Boolean = False; var Integer1: Integer = 15; Boolean1: Boolean = False; String1: String = 'SOME TEXT'; begin end; Such constructs are subject to frequent misinterpretation :-( I assume that you want to have C semantics, where the variables are initialized at every invocation of the subroutine. Other people think that the variables are static, retaining their values across calls (like writeable constants). In general I prefer an implementation of features that exist in other Pascal compilers, over an implementation of new and incompatible features, whose impact on the overall language (stability, type safety...) are unpredictable. Sometimes I dream of an compiler for both Pascal and C syntax, with simple switching between both languages. But I would not dare to suggest how those C parts should work, i.e. what features and bugs of which C compiler should be implemented, and how the C code should fit together with the Pascal code, with regards to type and operation safety. DoDi ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Jamie McCracken wrote: For me I prefere clarity above less typing (besides if you want to write realy short code, you sould use APL) I totally agree with you in this case - we dont want or need cryptic c stlye syntax in any version of Pascal. ACK. However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. Ironically python is perhaps the most popular language on Linux and most of its syntax is derived from object pascal whereas pascal on linux is virtually non-existant. Of course Python is piss poor in both performance and memory usage but it does point the way to a revitalised pascal. Adopting less verbose but still clean and clear syntax ala python is IMHO the way to make Pascal great again. IMO Python is preferred for its portability. Consider the efforts required to distribute a C project, with autobloat, configure and all that crap. Python in contrast is the modern BASIC, that made programming easy, at the cost of execution speed. And, like BASIC, Python IMO is not such a general (unlimited) programming language as are C or Pascals. Consider the developer unfirendly nature of pascal/Delphi atm: 1) Forward declarations - they sux! Why should the developers have the burden of making the code totally sequential declaration wise. All other modern compilers dont need this. Sure your code might take a bit longer to compile but thats peanuts compare to the time saved in extra typing and reordering your code I agree that forward declarations and circular unit references suck. If it's only compilation time, according improvements are welcome. But I suspect that the introdution into the compiler would exceed the current manpower :-( 3) loads of small and pointless additional syntax like EG for creating an object you should just be able to say: myobject.create; and not myobject := Tobject.create; That conflicts with e.g. someproc(someclass.create); It also is useless with polymorphism, where the type of the variable can differ from the type of the created object. also Begin..End blocks should IMO be replaced with python's indenting. No, please :-( A single run through an inappropriate editor could irrecoverably damage the indentation! I for my part would prefer a cleaner syntax, closer to Modula or Oberon, with statement_list vs. statement_sequence. The ends etc. can be inserted by an appropriate editor, if somebody wants less typing... Yeah I know this sounds like a hybrid pascal/python but I believe thats the way to go - marry Delphi's speed and component framework with less verbose python style syntax and you will have the best RAD language ever written. I like RAD, but only when paired with the reliability and (type...) safety of Pascal. RAD never should mean: type fast, debug forever - or - press run and cross your fingers :-( Or, as Vinzent pointed out: However, in general Pascal has poor developer productivity when compared to modern languages like python and C#. In terms of _written_ or in terms of _working_ lines of code? :- The careful design of a programming language is not a simple task. What looks nice to the user, may look very different to the compiler writer. It also should be noted that the amount of *helpful* compiler error messages heavily depends on the language design. Unfortunately there exist multiple Pascal compilers, each with different extensions to the original language, reducing the portability of source code. With regards to Python you only can hope that there will never come a second Python system, and that the development of the language and libraries will be continued, once the current implementors leave the project. DoDi ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
| More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me | anything useful in return. Why do you even bother using Pascal, it seems you obviously do not like one bit about it. | | | Garbage collection is largely no issue when using the Owner concept in TComponent, using TObjectList, etc. | | True and thats why I suggested ref counting Tobjects only so that no | manual memory management is required. I tend to make heavy use of TList, | Tstringlist and TFilestream objects so I cant do everything with | tcomponents alas. | | | and a richer framework has made them switch to the dark side. We need | to fight back! | | | Ok, but richer framework simply needs people adding packages and useful units to freepascal :-). | | | Python is hard to read, especially if multiple blocks are closed at | once, then it's hard to see what block a line belongs to (because of | missing 'end' or '}'). | | not true because of the indenting (use bigger indents!). Im not saying | | | Bigger indents cause the text to go too wide. More functions also help, I agree. | | | python is great I just envy *some* of its shorter syntax and it would | | | Ok, some, but not this one ? | | Well typing begin..end all over the place isn't a lot of fun :( Why do you even bother using Pascal, it seems you obviously do not like one bit about it. | | Especially as Im gonna have to indent them as well just to make em | readable. So yeah it seems they are more pointless syntax bloat. | Why do you even bother using Pascal, it seems you obviously do not like one bit about it. | | I also don't like the magic. For example the 'mystrings.create;' | example you mentioned, it's *totally* not consistent with regular | syntax: mystrings.create means call TStringList.Create on the | object pointed to by the mystrings variable. | | Well Pascal in the only mainstream langugae that does that - I dont | see the pont and it aint magic. | | | Sorry, the only language that does what ? | | var strlist : TStringlist; | strlist := Tstringlist.create; | | I know strlist is a Tstringlist, the compiler knows it too as I have | declared it so why do I have to spell it out in the creation process? Why do you even bother using Pascal, it seems you obviously do not like one bit about it. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
| In C++: | | TStringList strlist; | | strlist = new TStringList; | | How is that shorter ? | | okay but its still redundant. Why does the compiler need to have it | spelt out twice? Why cant the compiler deduce that as the pointer is | declared as TStringlist therefore it creates a TStringList? | | Why can't I just go strlist = new Draw the line. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
-- Class Contracts I like the 'require/ensure' aproach. It makes the code more robust and more debuggable, IMHO I think the checks you can do there are to limited. I also wonder what will happen if a require isn't met. Personally I don't want exeption in my released app. No, these are assertions not as exceptions. -- Generics I am not sure if Generics could be done in FPC. There were some discussions about it here and AFAIK some are trying to implement. Any links? -- Virtual Properties and Events The examples given there are not very different of what is possible now. Make SetWith virtual and you have almost the same. What however would be nice is if you could override the getter or setter. Something like property Width write MySetWidth I think you missed a few things here. type TMyClass = class ... property Width: integer read write; virtual; abstract; end; As you can see, getters and setters are not in the picture at all. Which means, you have all the freedom you want in the derived class. Plus, I like the idea that I could have a base class with read-only property that can not be overriden to be read-write later. property Width: integer read; virtual; abstract; OK, while I like the idea, I can not think of how I would use it though :-) Can someone help me out here G -- Enhanced Multicast Events This is not really new. You can implement it yourself like property OnChange: TNotifyList; and then OnChange.Add(Notifyproc) or OnChange.Remove(Notifyproc) OK. Nice to be able to do that. Do I have to write my TNotifyList every time I need it? Inline variable initializers, such as: [snip] var Integer1: Integer = 15; Boolean1: Boolean = False; String1: String = 'SOME TEXT'; Hmm.. sometimes usefull. You can put it as first lines in your constructor/codeblock, but keep it thogheter in say large classes can be handy. Yes, and it improved the readability, IMHO. Plus, there is no reason for you to alter that in constructor/codeblock too. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] modernizing pascal discussions
If you want to modernize the language you can take the current fpc code and extend it yourself. If the extension is clear and we agree on it it can eventually be put in the main fpc release. Discussions are useful. Before one starts coding away, a consensus would be nice to have. I would not want to spend days on something only to be thrown out simply because the idea or the principle got on the wrong sides of others. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Op Thu, 2 Jun 2005, schreef Jamie McCracken: So am I. My point is not changing the language so that it incurs additional maintenance or is harder to read or harder to fix bugs or make bugs more likely. In fact its the complete opposite. My point is to to reduce or remove *redundant* syntax that serves no useful or productive purpose (to the programmer). No, adding syntactic sugar usually does more harm than it is an enrichment. It promotes people to write code that only works on 1 compiler and increases the learning curve for people trying to learn the language. Syntactic sugar can be added *if* it really does have an advantage. However, changing the way constructors are done saves only a few keystrokes, but keeps people away from understanding class references, which, if understood well, can be a very powerfull tool (virtual constructors, calling class methods of class references etc.) So, I very much doubt if this proposal will help. Don't take us wrong, we are very much in favour of modernizing the language. However, we are getting *lots* of proposals like this, only *for* *no* *other* *reason* than to save a few keystrokes. Granting all those wishes would turn the language in an enourmous monster. That doesn't look like a good idea. We've also a limit amount of developers whos time needs to be spent well, or we'll get behind. So, we're very convervative. Good ideas though, that will really benefit people, will be read with great interrest. Forward declarations are redundant - they exist purely for the benefit of the compiler. Here I disagree. I like that I only need to look upward to search a procedure. Even when I program C I order the procedures like I to in Pascal, since it'll save time in the long term. Begin..End is redundant - you have to indent them to make em readable anyways. Here I agree, however, Pascal was designed this way. If I would design the language I would have likely chosen something shorter. On the other hand, I only need to type alt+B and I have a begin/end combo. Even without it, the begin/end doesn't irritate me. manual memory management of tobjects is redundant as you can get good performance with ref counting tobjects. I agree that automatic memory management eases the programming job. However, Pascal is a manual memory management language. That has advantages, software written in Pascal is fast, perceived fast by people, and uses very little memory. Users like software written in Pascal. They dislike software requiring JDK's and .NET runtimes. So, lets turn the disadvantage in an advantage. Pascal is no replacement for Java and C#. It is a replacement for C and C++. Now, the majority of software is written in C and C++. Isn't that a great potential market? All in all the changes would mean you spend more of your time implementing your application rather than typing loads of redundant code. Maintenance is easier as their is less redundancy. As has already been said, typing is not the problem, maintenance is. Pascal does a good job here, saving people a lot of time. Daniël ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] How to manually control debug information
At 19:36 2-6-2005, you wrote: Hello, I'm writting a custom preprocessor and I would like that the line number information maps to the original file. An example (not real, only an example): ...original.pas... 21 procedure AddFive(var a, b: Integer); 22 begin 23 a := ++b; 24 end; After preprocessor: ...processed.pas... 25 procedure AddFive(var a, b: Integer); 26 begin 27 Inc(b); 28 a := b; 29 end; I would like that stepping in the debugger through AddFive showed original.pas in lines 21 to 24, not processed.pas in lines 25 to 29. How could I do that? That is not possible with fpc Peter ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Thu, 2 Jun 2005, schreef Jamie McCracken: Daniël Mantione wrote: Ok! We'll be happy to assist anyone doing interresting developments with Free Pascal. Keep in mind though that implementing ideas can take a lot more time that thinking out ideas. The Free Pascal parser is indeed manual craftmanship. Some experimenting was done using yacc in the past but a handwritten parser turned out to be the best choice. The parser units start with the letter p, for example pexpr.pas is the expression parser. You've done it the hard way - no wonder developer's are reluctant to implement syntax changes! Yes... Because Java often turns out to be the wrong tool and its memory management is one of the reasons. We need to be carefull to prevent Pascal becoming a wrong tool. However, automated memory management does have some advantages. Nobody can deny that. Ref counting does not use more memory! (well okay 32 bits extra to store the ref count for each object). except were the source is bloated by forward declarations :) Just order your procedures like you should order them, go go!! :) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/fpc2/fpc/compiler grep ';forward;' *.pas browlog.pas:procedure writesymtable(p:Tsymtable);forward; pexpr.pas:function sub_expr(pred_level:Toperator_precedence;accept_equal : boolean):tnode;forward; pstatmnt.pas:function statement : tnode;forward; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/fpc2/fpc/compiler grep '; forward;' *.pas browcol.pas: function GetDefinitionStr(def: tdef): string; forward; scanner.pas:function read_expr : string; forward; [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/fpc2/fpc/compiler Wow! 5 forward declarations in the entire compiler source. Yeah, bloat indeed :) its a bit more than that. Forward declarations include the class interfaces too in the type section. EG under delphi : uses Classes, SysUtils; type TMyObject = class (Tobject) private count : integer; public constructor create; override; destructor destroy; override; end; implementation constructor TConfigureBuildLazarusDlg.Create(AnOwner: TComponent); begin inherited Create(AnOwner); inc (count); end; destructor TConfigureBuildLazarusDlg.Destroy; begin inherited Destroy; end; end. would become under Rad Pascal: uses Classes, SysUtils; TMyObject = class (Tobject) private count : integer; public constructor create; override; inherited Create(AnOwner); inc (count); destructor destroy; override; inherited Destroy; Notice its at least 50% less code to write. jamie. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Op Thu, 2 Jun 2005, schreef Jamie McCracken: Daniël Mantione wrote: Op Thu, 2 Jun 2005, schreef Jamie McCracken: Daniël Mantione wrote: Ok! We'll be happy to assist anyone doing interresting developments with Free Pascal. Keep in mind though that implementing ideas can take a lot more time that thinking out ideas. The Free Pascal parser is indeed manual craftmanship. Some experimenting was done using yacc in the past but a handwritten parser turned out to be the best choice. The parser units start with the letter p, for example pexpr.pas is the expression parser. You've done it the hard way - no wonder developer's are reluctant to implement syntax changes! Depends on your definition of hard way. The parser is fast and flexible. Ask Carl Eric Codere what the exact problems with Yacc were. But it's been there, done that, didn't work. Yes... Because Java often turns out to be the wrong tool and its memory management is one of the reasons. We need to be carefull to prevent Pascal becoming a wrong tool. However, automated memory management does have some advantages. Nobody can deny that. Ref counting does not use more memory! (well okay 32 bits extra to store the ref count for each object). Yes, but it has its own problems. Think of an object having a reference to itself (think of a ringbuffer with 1 object in the ring or so). Welcome in the real world. Perhaps (likely) there is a solution, perhaps (likely) there are more problems. No expert here. would become under Rad Pascal: uses Classes, SysUtils; TMyObject = class (Tobject) private count : integer; public constructor create; override; inherited Create(AnOwner); inc (count); destructor destroy; override; inherited Destroy; Notice its at least 50% less code to write. Yes. Too bad it is not possible. One of the problems you can expect is with cyclic units. Normally the interfaces of the units form a tree, which define how they get called. So the compiler can compile the interfaces in the depth first order, then it can do the implementations in any order it wants, cyclic uses in implementations are no longer a problem, as the compiler known how to call the procedures in those units. From the good taste department, it breaks the interface/implementation principle. The unit principle guarantees that libraries are being written so that one only needs to look at the interface, not the implementation to know how a library works. It saves a few keystrokes, but makes it a lot harder for the user of the library to understand it. Daniël ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
RE: [fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Well I will typically spend about 25% of my development time with forward declarations, doing loads of try finaly blocks to free memory and other things instead of implementing my application. jamie. Well, you are quite a machine. If you say so, sure it's so, but that's not the problem. Anyhow there are tools, editors, etc. that can easy that fact if you feel confortable with then. I usually spend under 5% typing my code, I spend a lot longer thinking what I have to type, and I DO spend quite longer debugging and improving my code. And herebye I challenge any C Coder to maintain a program faster and neater than in Pascal (I say C, 'cause your comments about Python and other script language I assume it's a joke). Anyway as Michael would say, a can of worms has been opened and we are not going anywhere. If you want to stick to Python, stick to it, but Pascal is another thing. JMR P.S.: BTW: Never heard of anybody doing serious programming in GNU Pascal (and I know many a programmer doing serious programming in FPC and even VP) ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] Range check error in cthreads (make debug)
Date sent: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 10:30:25 +0200 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org Subject:[fpc-devel] Range check error in cthreads (make debug) Send reply to: FPC developers' list fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If i compile rtl with debug info (make debug), then i get at start of my multithreaded app: An unhandled exception occurred at $08062B3C : ERangeError : Range check error $08062B3C CGETCURRENTTHREADID, line 310 of ../unix/cthreads.pp $0805ADAD GETCURRENTTHREADID, line 136 of /mnt/progs/devel/fpc/rtl/inc/thread.inc $08140367 COMMONINIT, line 1519 of /mnt/progs/devel/fpc/rtl/objpas/classes/classes.inc Thank you, should be fixed now. Tomas ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
the C-style operators += etc. should better be written as +:= since C has = as assignment, Pascal has := as assignment symbol := means assign to, += means add to etc., I cannot find any inconsistency here. Also, += and such were created to make it easier to convert C code. If you change this to +:= you do essentially two things: 1) Break existing code 2) Destroy any of the original purpose and usefulness of the thing in question. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[fpc-devel] Extend the libraries people!
What makes python interesting are the many classes it offers by default to perform standard tasks, especially in the text treatment department; regular expression stuff etc. The same goes for most languages; Mostly it's not the language syntax that determines the productivity factor; it's the number of standard available routines. Exactly! Thanks for brining this up. If you just want more people to use Pascal, just 1) Make it simple 2) Have lots of nice tools 3) And most of all, have lots of units to do different thing It's the libraries, functions, objects, etc. that really attract people. Why do you think Java got so popular? It certainly wasn't because it was lightning fast or easy to write. It was because the standard libraries that come with Java (despite Sun's insistance to try to talk about the two synonomously) were so extensive. Ever since C and its concept of including libraries, it's been obvious that this is the main attraction for people. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Jamie McCracken wrote: I don't understand, why are these forward declarations so evil ? More code bloat, more typing and they get in the way. They dont give me anything useful in return. Please show me a piece of code where they are in the way. Code bloat? They don't cost anything in the executable. thats not what I meant! I mean its source code bloat to me especially when trying to follow code with large classes in it. I typically follow code by jumping to the definition of variables or subroutines, and back again. I rarely read source code sequentially, because the static arrangement of code pieces is different from their logical relationship. DoDi ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
What matters is designing und understanding the code, not writing it. I spend less than 10% of my time at work in actually _writing_ code, so even if someone can type in his/her code twice as fast, the maximum (s)he would gain would be five percent in overall performance. you are missing the point! Whather you can implement something faster in another language is not the issue. I am arguing for less verbose syntax without decreasing the clarity of the code in delphi/pascal and that is logically gonna improve productivity without taking anything away. This is only 'logical' if the hypothesis productivity is inversely related to the syntax verbosity is correct. I question the correctness of the hypothesis, and I assume, so does Florian... I think the point of this is being lost on me. We're talking about changing things like philosophy (top-down design), and syntax. So are we talking about just creating another new language? I mean that's what it sounds like. Why not take Python or C# and add Pascal syntax or philsophies to it instead of adding these to Pascal? Maybe some people just really don't like Pascal that much. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
Re: [fpc-devel] type discussion
Well pascal in the only mainstream langugae that does that - I dont see the pont and it aint magic. Jamie, now I KNOW I don't understand where you're coming from Pascal? Mainstream? ;) ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
[fpc-devel] Re: [fpc-l] type discussion
Forward declarations are redundant - they exist purely for the benefit of the compiler. I agree. I hate prototyping. That's why you use top-down design. What's wrong with that? Begin..End is redundant - you have to indent them to make em readable anyways. Not at all; I certainly don't indent them, and I'm a fanatical indenter. I don't think you're going to convince anyone to change THIS part of Pascal--it's essential. You change begin and end, and you just don't have Pascal anymore. Plus the only reason I love FPC is because it is faithful to older code. If it breaks my code, I'll likely go back to a previous version and I bet there are enough people who feel this way that there will be the beginning of another project based on the older FPC code. manual memory management of tobjects is redundant as you can get good performance with ref counting tobjects. Oh yes, this old argument. I remember reading this on the list before. I guess it's still on your mind ;) I really don't know about the pros and cons for ref counting, so maybe someone can explain it. ___ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel