[fpc-pascal]The state of FPC (was: Synapse for FPC)

Matt Emson memsom at interalpha.co.uk
Thu Jul 24 13:59:55 CEST 2003

> On the contrary. We switched to this exactly because the opposite cannot
> be maintained. 8 years of cross-platform experience.

See below

> You can simply make a preprocessor which does that if you find it fun to
> But this doesn't change the unit structure, and gives no advantage in
> maintainability at all. At most the end user finds it easier to read the
> sources.

Your final line is the reason I mention it in the first place. The include
file system may be lovely for yourselves, but it is a mess imho. I have to
look at 3 files before I find the piece of the source I want to look at, and
even then I have to switch between the Interface and Implementation
includes!!!! *This* is not acceptable or compatible with the way I work.
This is what puts me off using FPC 90% of the time. This and the
inconsistencies of the Unit structure.

I think the end user would benefit from the 'preprocessed' units at release
time, and the developers would keep whatever grand scheme they desire at
development time.

Please understand, I do not mean you should change your way of working, just
that the end user should not have to see your messy include file ridden
source. Does that make sense?

> I think you'll have a hard time convincing the core members.
> You haven't convinced me. The system as it is works well, it took us
> some time to get it like that, so we're not likely to change it, just
> because someone doesn't like split-up files.

See above.

> When I was at borland for an interview, the first thing I asked was
> support in the IDE for include files. They scratched their head, and
> said they would think about it.

I'm pretty sure that the Unit files that are distributed by Borland are
constructed by a script from a larger source repository. I doubt they work
directly on the source files as we end users see them.

> This is the main reason why Delphi sources are generally without include
> files: because the IDE doesn't support them. Personally, I find it more
> logical e.g. to have one include file per class, this is simply not
> possible in Delphi.

The IDE doesn't support them because they make the browsing of code complex
and irritating. The way CBuilder handles Headers and C files is annoying
enough imho. Thankflly Borland do not subject us to the torture FPC does.

Remeber, just because it's easy to maintain for you, doesn't mean it's a
good thing for the end user. That's a fact I'm afraid.

> This is largely a matter of taste. In -Sd it is mandatory to use
> Borland's way, so if you restrict yourself to that mode, you should
> be fine.
> See: We accomodate most tastes :-)

Nice to see FPC has come along since I last attempted to use raw Windows API
in it ;-)


More information about the fpc-pascal mailing list