[fpc-devel] Please include gmp.dll in Win32 distribution of FPC 2.6.2 and later
XHajT03 at hajny.biz
Sun Dec 2 23:39:23 CET 2012
On 2 Dec 12, at 21:50, Alexander Klenin wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Tomas Hajny <XHajT03 at hajny.biz> wrote:
> > On 2 Dec 12, at 16:45, Alexander Klenin wrote:
> >> I am not sure which options do you mean,
> >> I refer to the dll mentioned here: http://wiki.freepascal.org/gmp
> > I meant multiple 2.6.2 installers (in particular, if we as the
> > official FPC site provide also an alternative special package
> > including the DLL in addition on our FTP).
> As I said, IMHO it would be simpler to just include gmp.dll in the "bin"
> directory, which already contains significant number of utilities
> like "rm.exe" and "make.exe" for quite similar reasons.
The reasons are different. These utilities are included because they
are used for building the compiler, not because someone using FPC may
use them too.
> >> Even if I persuade the jury of the final stage to use
> >> non-standard distribution,
> >> all preliminary stages (with approx. total of 5000 pupils
> >> participating) will still use standard distribution.
> > Do the preliminary stages also watch if the pupil hasn't downloaded
> > an additionally required DLL? Moreover, if the pupils don't know GMP
> > themselves, would they be able to use it without additional
> > documentation, etc. If they know it, they'd probably know also where
> > to get it from, right (and if the official jury doesn't stand in the
> > way, what is the problem)?
> > Anyway, if the pupils are taught that open source programming implies
> > using just the official distribution package of your programming
> > language, something is wrong in the setup anyway...
> Heh, you underestimate organization level and seriousness of
> programming contests.
Frankly, I don't know how the contest is organized in detail, but I
certainly don't get the point why just this particular DLL should
make any considerable difference. Programmers should find efficient
solutions for given tasks. Once they know the task, they should
decide about the best suiting tools for tackling the particular task.
In the real world, this certainly involves potential use of available
3rd party libraries which allow concentrating on the real issue
rather than reinventing the wheel. If the contest rules and the
particular task(s) make Java more advantageous than Pascal, then the
contest participants will probably decide accordingly and adding one
particular library won't change the picture much most probably. As
simple as that - FPC will never be able to provide such a breadth of
own libraries as a programming environment continously sponsored and
directly contributed by some of the world's largest corporations for
many years. Pascal should be promoted due to its own strengths (good
readability, better protection from programmer's faults, good
compilation speed coupled with reasonable execution speed, etc.), not
due to bundling of hundreds of megabytes of 3rd party libraries (I'm
sure that all the libraries for which Pascal bindings exist would
easily exceed this size and it would be probably doable, but it makes
Just my 2 cents (my private opinion)
More information about the fpc-devel