[fpc-devel]don't youthinkit'stimetoupdatedelphimodecompatibility?- IDispatch, implements

[Marco van de Voort]

> | yy[ Charset ISO-8859-1 unsupported, converting... ]
> | > > Nobody said that the same size can be reached, but I don't consider 132k
> | > > against 86k as a real problem. If you consider it as a problem, use 
> | > > Delphi.
> | > 
> | > That's not what I ment. I see a problem with a GUI app that's using FCL. 
> | > This apps are really of size that's not acceptable.
> | 
> | 1. To who?
> | 2. And why?
> 
> I think the guy is mixing up LCL with FCL.

The questions still stand. Not acceptable to who? And why does that person
consider it not acceptable?

0. Failing to smartlink or not strip debug info. This is not a FPC problem,
   but an user problem. There is some confusion about this lately, but 
   we can short about this; On win32, if you do a release build of your product
   run strip <.exe file> before UPX, in case the linker didn't strip all
   debuginfo.
1. not having an internal linker and thus not being able to further improve 
   smart linking
2. Having generic parts of the RTL portable.
3. (compared to TP/BP), simply being 32-bit.
4. (Lazarus compared to Delphi VCL) having a OS independant widgetset.

All these are known. 2 and 3 won't ever change. 

Not having an internal linker (1) is a known problem too, but can't be
changed short term (and LD might improve in the future too)

I don't think (4) is particularly bad. Lazarus apps smaller than 2 MB (1 mb
even with UPX) are doable, and that is a nice size nowadays.