[fpc-devel] Interface delegation fix: backport to FPC 2.4.2 ...?

Bee Jay bee.ography at gmail.com
Wed May 19 19:50:11 CEST 2010

On 20 Mei 2010, at 24:24, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:

> there must be progress in FPC; we don't want to keep running behind Delphi forever.
> Compatibility: absolutely. But also: progress and enhancements !

Just to give some supports... I'm with Michael and Graeme here. I don't know about the others, but I for sure migrated totally to FPC/Lazarus since a few years ago because I need something that is BETTER than Delphi. Marco's argument seems to contradict with FPC/Lazarus spirit that it's not a simply Delphi clone. 

If FPC/Lazarus does really want to be crazily fully 100% compatible with Delphi then where is the progress of dynamic package (BPL) support? It has been requested since a few years back by lots of people, yet almost none is done. Why language enhancements introduced in newer Delphi such as strict private, etc comes so late? Where is the support for dot character for unit name? Just to mention some incompatibilities, even with older Delphi.

Somehow it looks funny to me. When someone requests for new feature that is compatible with newer Delphi, FPC/Lazarus developer would say that FPC/Lazarus is not a Delphi clone. One should not hope every feature of Delphi would be available in FPC/Lazarus. Yet, if someone requests for enhancement that is not compatible with Delphi, FPC/Lazarus developer would say that FPC/Lazarus should maintain the compatibility with Delphi. Heh?! :P

I prefer to put enhancement as the first priority then compatibility (with Delphi) as the second. Compatibility with Delphi is good and always be welcomed, but that doesn't mean FPC/Lazarus should always be under the shadow of Delphi. Delphi's future is not as bright as yesterday. What is gonna happen to FPC/Lazarus if someday Delphi is abandoned by the author? Will us let FPC/Lazarus stuck in the middle of nowhere for the sake of compatibility?


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list