demian at knowhow-online.com.br
Thu Nov 13 00:31:34 CET 2003
Thanks for replying!
>> #1. Is there a white paper on the features the FP compiler
>> supports and the features it doesn't support when compared
>> to the Delphi compiler? I know I can dig this info on the
>> manuals but I was hoping to find a feature matrix indicating
>> the major diferences and similarities between the FP and
>> Delphi compilers.
> No there isn't. The older 1.0.x series is a mix of D2 language
> with some later extensions, and a mix of a bit newer RTL (D4,
> though some parts at D2 level).
> The newer series that just went into beta (1.9.x as beta, and
> will be 2.0.x at some time) will be close to later versions (up
> to D7) compatible. However while already stable and usable, not
> all more exotic features have been tested, documented or even
> completely implemented.
> The only major language element completely missing afaik is
> dispinterface, while several other are incomplete.
> While e.g. some base fundamentals for packages have been
> implemented in the compiler, the related runtime parts have
> not been created yet.
> We find missing smaller functionality in the RTL nearly
> everyday, but that is partially also because this version
> went public only a week ago, it is the initial rush.
I get the picture- it's a neverending work indeed! But I guess
when the Lazarus IDE becomes a production software, the interest
in FP will grow and will allow the project to run faster.
I can tell as one of the moderators of the largest portuguese
speaking groups on Yahoo! Groups (2200 subscribers) that if
Lazarus were already available as a stable release on Windows
and Linux, it would draw the attention of many, many users.
Also, in the academia, I'm sure most institutions would choose
FP over Delphi for their first year algorithm and programming
logic classes, and second year OO programming- I would do that
with my students!
>> #2. Does the exception handling architecture provide easy
>> to the call stack and other potentially useful information
>> about the exception?
>> #3. Is there (planned) support for object serialization?
>> #4. Is there (planned) support for object persistence (like
>> J2EE container based persistence)?
> I'll let these pass.
ok... guess the answer would be no, then!
>> #5. Is there (planned) support for garbage collection on
>> objects and/or pointers?
> It doesn't make much sense to create a compiler for an
> efficient, static, language, and then slow it down by
> mutilating it with a dog slow GC.
> There has been some academical interest/discussion in trying
> to make a proof of concept hierarchy (so a separate object
> hierarchy not based on tobject) that can be garbadge collected,
> but that certainly plans to do that outside the current classes
> hierarchy, with no or minimal compiler support.
> However all people that were discussing that are much to busy
> for that, so, unless an external contributor pops up, don't hold
> your breath.
OK, I understand you point. This leads me to another set of intriguing
#A. Does FP support other class hierarchies other than those
starting at TObject? I mean, any FP object is a TObject,
right? I wonder if it would be possible to create a new
object hierarchy from scratch, not based on TObject.
#B. Reflection support, as far as I understand, starts at
TPersistent and relies on published properties. Is there
any chance this could be made more flexible- I mean, let
TObject properties support reflection?
#C. Is there (planned) support for class attributes?
#D. Is there (planned) support for class templates?
#E. Is there (planned) support for wxWindows? I think this
is a terrific abstraction layer for GUI. The best is
that it is stable (10+ years), works on many plataforms,
and as FP/Lazarus, it is OS. But it still doesn't have
a Pascal port.
#F. I haven't seen any links or pages through which I could
volunteer to help with FP/Lazarus- where do I find that?
Thanks again for your response!
More information about the fpc-pascal