Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
On 2015-08-14 00:49, Nikolay Nikolov wrote: > Well, now all they need is a decent equivalent to Pascal's units > (instead of relying on preprocessor hacks such as #include), Pascal's > compilation speed, decent RTTI, class types (e.g. "class of tobject") > and C++ becomes a halfway-usable language I've recently been familiarising myself with the Java language, and later switched from using a plain text editor to using Eclipse IDE to write my code. WOW, was I pleasantly surprised with Java and Eclipse. - I could use compiled .class files created with Java 5, even though I'm using Java 8. No recompile of the old code needed. - Renaming a class in Eclipse is a single change - Eclipse even takes care of the file name change. - Because Java doesn't have a header unit (.h) or a Interface section, renaming methods, types etc is a single edit change. No search and replace needed. - Write code that doesn't exist yet (eg: calling a method of a class and with arguments). Then press Ctrl+1 and Eclipse implements that method with the correct parameter types for you, in the correct file and class. Awesome - especially if you code in the TDD style like I do. - Using Eclipse, I don't actually have to Compile my code - Eclipse does it continuously in the background - that is also how it manages to report errors or improvements against your code. - Even though I'm using Java 8, I can tell Eclipse to recommend better code, API usage etc against any earlier Java version. It knows exactly what Java version supported what language syntax and features. So the code generator will not generate code where certain features did not exist in the selected compatibility Java version. - Eclipse has an Outline Window, which shows you what a Pascal Interface section would show. So even though Java doesn't have an explicit Header or Interface section - it really isn't needed at all, because the Outline Window tell you everything. Plus, simply double click a method there and the code editor takes you to that code. Want to rearrange the order of methods or fields? No problem, and no need for Cut & Paste either. Simply select and drag them around in the Outline Window, and Eclipse will move the actual code for you. - Enable Format on Save - so even if your indentation, alignment etc are not according to the code formatting style you specified, Eclipse will reformat your code on Save (all lines, or only changed lines can be processed). - Eclipse's Refactoring support is out of this world! And that's just what I discovered in 2 days! I'm really starting to like Java (and Eclipse) a lot. It has improved so much since my initial introduction to Java from the late 90's. Regards, Graeme ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
Nikolay Nikolov wrote: Almost like Pascal's units. :) Although they don't include namespaces and not intended for binary distribution. Yes, I know about them, but come on... Turbo Pascal introduced units in 1987 (in TP4). I think UCSD Pascal had them even before that (I never used UCSD, so I don't know). Since then, they've become de facto standard in pretty much every Pascal implementation that matters (even though they're not in ISO Pascal). C++ has a draft proposal in 2012 (only 25 years after TP4) and only one compiler implementation in 2015. On the other hand, C and C++ are children of ALGOL, and the early major ALGOL implementations tended towards conditional inclusion etc. rather than separate compilation. I think that separate compilation with a linkage editor was originally an IBM mainframe thing, Wirth was exposed to it at the end of his time at Stanford when they added an IBM 360 to the existing Burroughs systems (some stories have it that the ALGOL systems were thrown out, but I suspect that they were actually transferred to SRI). -- Mark Morgan Lloyd markMLl .AT. telemetry.co .DOT. uk [Opinions above are the author's, not those of his employers or colleagues] ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
Hi, On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Nikolay Nikolov wrote: On 08/13/2015 11:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote: http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/08/13/1229239 In all fairness, they also optimise it so that they emit fewer checks (if you check whether X of the correct type in one statement, you may not have to check it again in the next etc) and hence reduce the run time overhead. Still... :) Well, now all they need is a decent equivalent to Pascal's units (instead of relying on preprocessor hacks such as #include), Meet the C(++) Modules proposal: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf I think CLang/LLVM already implemented it. http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html Almost like Pascal's units. :) Although they don't include namespaces and not intended for binary distribution. Charlie ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
On 08/14/2015 11:02 AM, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) wrote: Hi, On Fri, 14 Aug 2015, Nikolay Nikolov wrote: On 08/13/2015 11:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote: http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/08/13/1229239 In all fairness, they also optimise it so that they emit fewer checks (if you check whether X of the correct type in one statement, you may not have to check it again in the next etc) and hence reduce the run time overhead. Still... :) Well, now all they need is a decent equivalent to Pascal's units (instead of relying on preprocessor hacks such as #include), Meet the C(++) Modules proposal: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf I think CLang/LLVM already implemented it. http://clang.llvm.org/docs/Modules.html Almost like Pascal's units. :) Although they don't include namespaces and not intended for binary distribution. Yes, I know about them, but come on... Turbo Pascal introduced units in 1987 (in TP4). I think UCSD Pascal had them even before that (I never used UCSD, so I don't know). Since then, they've become de facto standard in pretty much every Pascal implementation that matters (even though they're not in ISO Pascal). C++ has a draft proposal in 2012 (only 25 years after TP4) and only one compiler implementation in 2015. Nikolay ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
In our previous episode, Karoly Balogh (Charlie/SGR) said: Well, now all they need is a decent equivalent to Pascal's units (instead of relying on preprocessor hacks such as #include), Meet the C(++) Modules proposal: http://llvm.org/devmtg/2012-11/Gregor-Modules.pdf And Stroustrup is considering modules for C++17: http://www.infoq.com/news/2015/04/stroustrup-cpp17-interview ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
In our previous episode, Nikolay Nikolov said: http://www.infoq.com/news/2015/04/stroustrup-cpp17-interview Yes, I know about that too, but I'm still wondering why it took so long. C++ has an everything but the kitchen sink approach, where they introduce every programming language feature they can think of into the language (they had generics before everyone else, they have multiple inheritance, esoteric class inheritance modes (protected inheritance, wtf), template metaprogramming, etc.), so it's surprising modules took so long. I'm not deep in the C++ scene, Nico is probably better at answering this, but if I would have to guess probably a matter of demand. Till now legacy requirements outweight demand for a solution to this. Also because most C++ don't know or don't want to know the problems. ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
On 8/13/2015 4:49 PM, Nikolay Nikolov wrote: Well, now all they need is a decent equivalent to Pascal's units (instead of relying on preprocessor hacks such as #include), Pascal's compilation speed, decent RTTI, class types (e.g. class of tobject) and C++ becomes a halfway-usable language :) There are only two things wrong with C++: The initial concept and the implementation. -- Bertrand Meyer :-P Ralf --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
Re: [fpc-other] $100, 000 for C++ implementation of FPC's -CR option
On 08/13/2015 11:47 PM, Jonas Maebe wrote: http://it.slashdot.org/story/15/08/13/1229239 In all fairness, they also optimise it so that they emit fewer checks (if you check whether X of the correct type in one statement, you may not have to check it again in the next etc) and hence reduce the run time overhead. Still... :) Well, now all they need is a decent equivalent to Pascal's units (instead of relying on preprocessor hacks such as #include), Pascal's compilation speed, decent RTTI, class types (e.g. class of tobject) and C++ becomes a halfway-usable language :) Nikolay ___ fpc-other maillist - fpc-other@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fpc-other
