[fpc-devel] "Blank slate" next version of FPC

[Ben Grasset]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 4:07 AM James via fpc-devel <
fpc-devel at lists.freepascal.org> wrote:

> I'm interested in starting (or joining) a discussion on the next (*non*
> backwards compatible) version of FPC. Instead of being classically object
> oriented, there is merit in examining a model with ad-hoc polymorphism like
> Rust.
>

Here's my two cents:

There's nothing overtly wrong at all with FPC as it stands now, IMO. It
arguably does have quite a range of features, many of which are borderlines
useless nowadays, but I don't think this matters a whole lot.

The idea that it is "bloated" as I sometimes hear doesn't make a whole lot
of sense, for one. FPC does not magically add things you don't use to your
binary. How would that work? Why would you think it did? It's illogical.

More specifically, the ongoing idea that pops up every now and then
that *anything
*new could *ever* be "forced down" anyone's "throat" is moreso the problem,
I think. It's sheer nonsense *FUD*, and always has been. You can go *way*
back in the archives for this very mailing list and see people making
doomsday claims about how the introduction of "for-in" loops, of all
things, were somehow going to magically "ruin" the language. Of course,
that did not happen, (specifically because the idea made no at all sense to
begin with, of course.)

It's even more tiresome to see the claim I often see about "go use XYZ
language if you want XYZ feature", especially when in many cases *nobody *has
mentioned XYZ language at all. That is *almost never *anyone's point. It's
not 2002 anymore. The whole "Pascal vs. C++" or "Pascal vs Java" or "Pascal
vs. Whatever Language" idea is *completely ridiculous *nowadays (and has
been for years.) Stop mentioning it people. It's not a thing. It's not real.

As far as what we're actually *missing*, the clear biggest is certainly
anonymous methods IMO. Where the hell is Blaise Thorne? Can we just find
the guy, get him to finish it, and get the thing merged once and for all?
Or just use some different implementation? Some kind of tuple functionality
(as I believe was discussed in the past) would be a nice addition also.

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.freepascal.org/pipermail/fpc-devel/attachments/20190216/d32cb8ce/attachment.html>