[fpc-pascal]FPC vs. GPC

[Marco van de Voort]

> On Tue, Jan 28, 2003 at 03:12:11PM +0100, Marco van de Voort wrote:
> 
> > True. There is pretty much no point in that, since the Pascal standards are
> > effectively dead. (Borland 99.9% marketshare)
> 
> Well, well... and who needs HTML standards when anybody uses Microsoft
> products anyway...  I hate that argument!!!

HTML is used for interoperation on the web. It affects much more people.
Totally different discussion.

The only reason to adapt the ISO standards is to gain access to ISO sources. Fact is,
there aren't many, so it is no top priority. So while we are not 100% opposed to it, it is
not scheduled, not even for the distant future, as long as there is work to do that _DOES_
have its merits. (like more processors, better optimizations, IDE's etc)
 
> > > FreePascal supports just one dialect,
> > 
> > FPC supports both BP as Delphi syntax.
> 
> Okay, then I say "the dialects of just one company".

Actually the Object Pascal (Delphi language) was also implemented (though
differently) by Apple.

> > This is nonsense. Either one uses systemspecific extensions or not. This works
> > for both FPC and GPC.
> 
> That's not what I said. I said GPC hasn't that much systemspecific
> extentions. 

It has. They are maybe not in the main distro. E.g. look at the Chief's packages,
and you will find a lot of win32 stuff.

> That can be seen as disadvantage or as advantage.

I fail to see the advantage. It's like saying that having no legs is an
advantage because then they can't be hurt. I prefer walking though.

I've dealt with arguments like this my entire Modula-2 period, which is why
I ultimately abandonned Modula2. The biggest problem, that all available
sourcecode were very simple or theoretic algorithmic problems. No real applications,
toolkits or so.

What good does a "pure" language + libraries do, when you can't work with them?
 
> > > What I really want would be a mixture of both!
> > 
> > Then there is only one option. Work on either of them. Both projects
> > have manpower shortage, the difference is how they handle that.
> 
> Well, may I port FPC units to GPC?
> May I put them to their archive, even if no porting is necessary?

Most of the FPC stuff is GPL or LGPL. If you keep to those very small
conditions, there will be no problem. 
  
> > GPC hardly knows any Delphi dialect features, and those are
> > the strong point of FPC (most of the development in language after 
> > 1997 deals with Delphi extensions).
> 
> Well, I never worked with Delphi. So maybe GPC is really better for me.

Frankly, that would depend on your history. If you have an extensive history
in ANSI pascal, (and more importantly) a large ANSI codebase to work with in
your field (some scientific disciplines have this), GPC may be better.

For new development, I'd use the more modern Delphi dialect (which GPC is
also implementing bit by bit, but only slowly), and the more stable compiler
(which IMHO is FPC)

> BTW. the name FreeDelphi would fit better then.

No. The language is called "Object Pascal", Delphi is much more (RAD etc),
besides we still have fundamental Borland Pascal mode. (or actually two, a
strict one, and one with extensions)
 
Besides that, the term "Delphi" is probably copyrighted.