[fpc-devel] Pascal Standard, and what we can do.
Michael Van Canneyt
michael at freepascal.org
Thu Jul 23 09:22:20 CEST 2015
On Thu, 23 Jul 2015, Maciej Izak wrote:
> 2015-07-23 8:04 GMT+02:00 Sven Barth <pascaldragon at googlemail.com>:
>> Am 22.07.2015 23:13 schrieb "Maciej Izak" <hnb.code at gmail.com>:
>>> Sorry Sven but I do agree with inline variable declarations. You don't
>> have exclusive rights to dictate what is main point of Pascal (there is
>> also Oxygene, SmartPascal). This is your opinion and this is not ultimate
>> truth. There is also community with experienced users and big part of this
>> community (especially around Delphi and Oxygene, not around FPC core
>> development team :P) needs modern open source Pascal.
>> This is not merely my opinion.
> The same on my side. There is a great opposition. So again : this is not
> ultimate truth.
>>> Some people love Oxygene, and you can't tell that the Oxygene is not the
>> Pascal. Any new construction will be "non pascalish" at first glance.
>> No, that depends heavily on the specific construction. Mostly whether it
>> was obviously just "ripped" from other languages like C# without giving a
>> second thought about the way how things should be done in Pascal (for
>> example attributes or Delphi's generics) or not (for example tuples in
> IMO Delphi/Oxygene generics are better for real life development. FPC
> specialize keyword is nightmare and not intuitive construction. Generics
> should be short in usage. They exist for clear and reusable constructions.
> I need to cite you: "Prefixed modifiers are the /worst/ you can do for
> Pascal.". By introducing "specialize" keyword, you deny yourself.
> So when some crap construction is introduced by FPC team, all is ok, but
> any proposed solution that is clear/clever, it becomes /non pascalish/,
> /not main point of Pascal/ and /worst/ thing ever.
> Ripping smart and productive constructions is good thing. They don't need
> to be pascalish as hell.
Yes, they do.
More information about the fpc-devel