[fpc-devel] How do I go about volunteering as a "release builder", so that we can get rid of the objectively untrue, misleadingly worded "There is no native compiler available for x86_64 Win64. You have to use a cross-compiler" notice on the FPC website?
operator97 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 5 04:26:29 CET 2018
I'm not young. You're making all kinds of assumptions here. TP7 *is *generally
speaking, irrelevant in the fast majority of cases nowadays. FPC is 1000x
more advanced in every conceivable way than any version of Turbo Pascal
ever was. There is nothing "interesting" about TP from a current
perspective. At this point it's simply just a notably worse Pascal compiler
than FPC, and nothing more.
I find it extremely difficult to believe that you're actually claiming
there is a non-trivial number of people out there who have *literally* been
actively developing in nothing but Turbo Pascal right up until now, and
finally have decided to "modernize", and who will as such actually find
that article useful.
The overall point is just that I believe it is *highly* reasonable to
suggest that article is of interest to exceedingly few people at this
current point in time, and that there are almost certainly things that
would be found useful by a significantly higher number of people that could
take its place. Not that I'm absolutely *not* suggesting it be removed
On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 5:24 PM Ralf Quint <freedos.la at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/4/2018 4:41 AM, wkitty42 at windstream.net wrote:
> > On 11/3/18 7:09 PM, Ben Grasset wrote:
> >> (The same could be said about the various other wildly outdated bits of
> >> information on the overall site and the fact that it gives
> >> now-hugely-irrelevant topics like "porting from TP7" such precedence,
> >> but
> >> that's a different issue.)
> > porting from TP/BP 6/7 is still fairly relevant... maybe not in your
> > part of the universe but it is definitely relevant for others... in
> > one development directory here there are well over 500 pas and inc
> > files needing porting... no clue at this time the number of LoC in
> > those files but it is a lot more than those with the porting task
> > really want to know about else it set a daunting task ahead of them...
> +1 (at least)
> The narrowmindedness of some of the young whippersnappers never ceases
> to amaze me (and not in a good way :-( ).
> Having info that is outdated (as subsequent developments have
> improved/replaced it) is one thing, but what one might consider "hugely
> irrelevant" is a completely different issue and "highly" depended on
> subjective needs and purposes...
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the fpc-devel