[fpc-pascal]QT (Was Re: PalmOS)

Peter Vreman peter at freepascal.org
Sat Aug 18 12:56:44 CEST 2001

> > Even Kylix uses a C wrapper; I don't think it is worth the effort;
> > Creating a C layer in a structured/programmed way may be much more
> > simple than trying to implement full C++ support. The performance
> > impact of this extra layer will hopefully be quite minimal, when
> > compared to the comparative slowness of the C++ libs.
>I remember some of us on this list had this discussion when Kylix came 
>out. We
>were divided.. I remember I was quite happy to use Kylix with it's wrapped 
>flattened API, but others 'poo pooed' it. They made bold statements about how
>it wasn't a propper thing to do and how FPC would never take this 
>approach. In
>the real world, however, things are never all that simple. A flattened API is
>better than no compiler support, so I applaud Michael's foresight.
>To be honest, at this point in time, with BeOS being in a completely unstable
>position, I can't see why we'd want to bother worrying about how the API 
>are being made. After all, if there are no more updates to the OS, who will
>want or need the compiler?? Any support is better than zilch/nothing/nada/nil

The 1.1 compiler can already compile the Qt.pas unit from FreeCLX with only 
a very small patch to Libc.pas to include two type declaration that are not 
in our system unit.

So if ppl want to experiment with Qt it is already possible. I didn't try 
it yet so i don't know yet how a sample program compiles and links.


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list