[fpc-pascal] FP IDE sources

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024, Florian Klämpfl via fpc-pascal wrote:

>> Still, it is more logical to place it under utils, with the rest of the
>> programs.
>> 
>> The argument about the time to compile seems simply false to me:
>> 
>> If you consider the FPC toplevel 'make all' as the only command to
>> issue, then you may win some time, although I doubt it will be that much.
>> 
>> But 99% of the time, you don't need to recompile the utilities.
>
> I do always a make all as it takes only a few more seconds than a make 
> cycle and then I am sure everything builds.

You must have a very fast PC, here the difference is very measurable.

1:06 for a 'make cycle'
2:05 for a toplevel 'make all'.

So almost a minute difference. This is with -j 4 and the according fpmakeopt.

>> I certainly do not:
>> I usually do a make cycle followed by a compilation of the rtl/packages 
>> with debug info.
>> 
>> So if we moved the IDE to utils where it logically belongs, I would 
>> actually be winning time, contrary to the argument for having it in 
>> packages.
>
> As I moved it, my thinking was that it is not really a utility but a 
> package (in particular in the sense of the installer). And having 
> executables is also the case for other packages.

Here I differ in opinion: Normally packages do not constitute a program.
If that was the criterium, all utils could be put in the packages directory.

It may be that some packages have a demo program, but the package itself is
normally just a set of units. I know of no package other that is a program.
chm has some tools but IMO they are also misplaced and should be in utils.

So the IDE - for me - is definitely a utility. Given the times indicated above,
it would make a considerable difference to move it.

Michael.