Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
> > > > 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 u
Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
you *might* have less overhead using ref count on a tstringlist then
making it a component (if you are creating more than one reference to it
or passing it as a parameter to a function then yes a component would be
more efficient). You also have the problem of what y
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.06.2005, 16:02 +0100 schrieb Jamie McCracken:
> Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
> >
> > I'd suggest creating tlist, tstringlist, tfilestream-like things with an
> > optional owner (TComponent-like). I've been programming delphi for
> > years, and trust me, I know how annoying ke
Danny Milosavljevic wrote:
I'd suggest creating tlist, tstringlist, tfilestream-like things with an
optional owner (TComponent-like). I've been programming delphi for
years, and trust me, I know how annoying keeping track of tlist memory
is (and I mean _annoying like [EMAIL PROTECTED] hell_ :)).
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.06.2005, 08:53 +0200 schrieb Hans-Peter Diettrich:
> Jamie McCracken wrote:
>
> > > 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 n
Jamie McCracken wrote:
> > 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,
> Tstringl
On Friday 03 June 2005 14:52, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
> Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
> >>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).
> >
> > It's not much worse than C++ in typic
Vinzent Hoefler wrote:
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).
It's not much worse than C++ in typical projects (which has, I admit,
much to do with the people using it).
Of cou
On Thursday 02 June 2005 15:53, Sebastian Kaliszewski wrote:
> 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
> >
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
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?
>
And do you think they dumped Delphi because Borland is virtually
bankrupt and is basically only trying to become yet another .Net
platform, or because they think they are so much more productive with
the C# *syntax* ?
No, of course they're using it because Microsoft said so ;)
__
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
y
On Thursday 02 June 2005 21:28, L505 wrote:
> | > 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 t
| > 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 crea
| 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 TOb
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? :->
Can't stop refraining that fact ;-)
> Dont kid yourself - a lot of my fell
> > 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 gre
> 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 implementatio
> 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.
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
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005, Ales Katona wrote:
>
> >
> > http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=fpascal&lang2=ocaml&sort=fullcpu
> >
> >
> >
> > Here comes Pascal (FPC) vs Ocaml (hybrid functional/imperative language
> > with OO). Ocaml is significantly faster although it ha
> 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 sc
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=fpascal&lang2=ocaml&sort=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 c
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
softwa
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.
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 both
> >>>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++:
> >
> > TStri
On Thursday 02 June 2005 17:07, Marc Weustink wrote:
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Jamie
> McCracken
> Sent: donderdag 2 juni 2005 16:32
>
> >var strlist : TStringlist;
> >strlist := Tstringlist.create;
If the goal is this, I'd prefear a way to declare objects aut
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 cr
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 v
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.
On Thursday 02 June 2005 13:54, Sebastian Kaliszewski 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
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 sho
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?
For 2 reasons:
First, with
strlist.create;
It is not clear whether strlist is already initia
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,
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 declaration
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 espci
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 direct
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
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 ter
On 2 jun 2005, at 15:22, Jamie McCracken wrote:
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 ti
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
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/
44 matches
Mail list logo
