[fpc-pascal] Bls: Bug in FPC 3.0.0 (was: Bug in FPC 3.0.0?)

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Thu, 25 Feb 2016, Serguei TARASSOV wrote:

> Mr Bee wrote
>> Sometimes I just don't understand the policy of FPC devs about Delphi
>> compatibility. In some cases, they said FPC isn't a slave of Delphi, FPC
>> should have better goal than Delphi, there's the Delphi way and there's
>> the FPC way, breaking old codes is consequence of a change, bla bla bla…. 
>
> In the absence of standard, there is no way.
> All depends on several core developers (FPC) or on corporate policy
> (Delphi). 
> The Delphi way is less poor but both are risky.

Oh, why is that ?

>
> The absence of standards is the most weak point of Object Pascal/Delphi and
> its "standard" libraries.

We could not be more in agreement.

However, I wish to point out that FPC here is always in the disadvantage:

Borland/Inprise/Embarcadero/Idera has consistently denied to cooperate on this. 
(whether or not this is a company policy, or because they simply ignore us, I do not know).

When FPC implemented a language feature first, they later implemented it differently.

To give an example:
When Jonas designed the objective C classes for Mac OS X, he explicitly mailed them to ask
what they were going to do. He got a noncommittal answer.

By contrast, when we implement a feature that Delphi has, we always implement it in a 
compatible way in $MODE Delphi. 
When doing base classes, we make sure that we provide all identifiers that Delphi 
provides, so your code compiles.

If someone reports a missing identifier, we always attempt to implement it.

I don't see what we can do more ?

Michael.