Delphi strategy against Lazarus
Rod
0.9.25 and FPC 2.2 are out. I get 100 or 200 mails per day, before maybe
40 or 50. The new IDE looks very professional. The compiler is very
feature rich. I guess it is just a question of time Lazarus would be
ahead of Delphi.
What is the strategy of CG for Delphi?
OBones
Is it still the same pain to install a package in Lazarus ?
Last time I tried, I had to recompile the IDE, and that's no way near as
easy as the BPL system in Delphi...
--
Olivier Sannier
JVCL Coordinator
http://jvcl.sf.net/
Find more about me on LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/in/obones
Alan Garny
news:475c1f2f$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> There is much noise in the Lazarus group in recent days. Since Lazarus
> 0.9.25 and FPC 2.2 are out. I get 100 or 200 mails per day, before maybe
> 40 or 50. The new IDE looks very professional. The compiler is very
> feature rich. I guess it is just a question of time Lazarus would be ahead
> of Delphi.
Time, yes. At that rate, in a few years, maybe...
I have just installed the latest version of a Windows XP virtual machine and
I have just got a "division by zero" error. Simple to reproduce: start
lazarus, resize the main window (i.e. the one with the menu, palette of
components, etc.) trying to make its width as small as possible. Well, in my
case, I eventually get the aforementioned error before long. I am not even
talking about the flickering I get or the fact that the resizing is badly
handled (I can resize to a point where the palette is unusable and/or some
menus are partly visible). Bad, bad, bad...
Jolyon Smith
> (I can resize to a point where the palette is unusable and/or some
Yep, Delphi 2007 is waaay ahead of Lazarus in this area.
The Delphi 2007 palette is unusable right out of the box - no need to
faff about resizing it.
;D
(sorry - couldn't resist)
--
JS
TWorld.Create.Free;
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> The Delphi 2007 palette is unusable right out of the box
I guess you are pretty alone with your opinion (although I'm sure that
all who agree with you will come out of the woodwork now <g>).
I very much prefer the current palette. It shows me many more items at
once (I use glyph-only display, so a palette only takes up two or three
"lines" of glyphs in the palette, so I can see at least 6 or 7 tabs at
once) than the old palette (and of course, finding a component is much
simpler - although that is not so important, to me). The old palette
was rigid and far less usable, and only showed one tab at a time.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called
research, would it?" -- Albert Einstein
Marius
Thats an interesting question, what will an open source compiler and
editor do with Delphi (given some time).
From what i have seen the fpc compiler is great and the laz editor can
be compared with delphi7. There are things that needs to be fixed or
extended in the LCL, but the mainstream components are working. If you
can live with some limitations, some bugs and have some patience it
delivers multiplatform + unicode *now*. But all these problems is
something CG has to solve also *when* they go multiplatform.
Anywhay, its the first pascal compiler where i can test my application
in win32 then recompile and deploy for instance for arm/wince, linux and
win32/64. No need to rewrite all existing code..
Greetings,
Marius
Levend Sener [Think-Factory]
> ...
> What is the strategy of CG for Delphi?
Create new, more restrictive EULAs? :-(
See: http://dn.codegear.com/article/37457
Levend.
Michael Trowe
> Create new, more restrictive EULAs? :-(
In my opinion it's still a nonrestrictive EULA:
It's still alowed that you install your license to multiple machines. Even
if you are only allowed to work at one machine.
The only point I condemn, is that they forbid to sell an unused license.
But I think that this is an invalid condition here in germany.
Michael
Mat Ballard
> I guess it is just a question of time Lazarus would be ahead of Delphi.
It is already ahead in some areas: 64 bit support for example, and of course,
cross-platform support. It is roughly comparable in other areas (IDE, LCL versus
VCL), and behind in others - DB support, packages, and help (versus D7, anyway).
So it really depends on the nature of the computing problem you are trying to
solve, rather than it being better or worse on average than Delphi.
I must say that I do perceive that the Windows version is the "poor cousin", but
for an open source project being pushed by a relatively small number of
developers it is remarkably professional.
Q Correll
| Create new, more restrictive EULAs? :-(
|
| See: http://dn.codegear.com/article/37457
Looks reasonable. Except for:
"Who can enter into the license?
You can only enter into the EULA if you have purchased the product from
CodeGear directly or from a reseller authorized by CodeGear to sell the
product. This means that you may not enter into the license if you have
purchased this product from any person or business not so authorized.
For example, if you bought your copy of the product from eBay from a
person who is not an authorized CodeGear reseller, you cannot use the
product and you cannot be a party to the EULA."
Which I think is poorly worded. I think it should be specific to a
previously registered person selling something on eBay. As that
paragraph is written I couldn't buy a coipy of Delphi and give it to a
friend as a gift. My attorney says that paragraph is unenforcable as
written. (He didn't read the actual EULA.)
--
Q
12/09/2007 14:54:35
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
Levend Sener [Think-Factory]
> ...
> The only point I condemn, is that they forbid to sell an unused
> license. But I think that this is an invalid condition here in
> germany.
According to German law the latter is really not valid (here in
Germany). German law says that I can sell a license whenever I want to
whoever I want, after I legally purchased it.
Why do US lawyers always think that US laws are also valid outside the
US? Stupid guys!
Anyway, we should be glad that CG allows us to install the software for
which we purchased full licenses! <vbg>
But honestly: I will stick more to OSS if this EULA madness should go
on...
Levend.
Richard Foersom
> Why do US lawyers always think that US laws are also valid outside the
> US? Stupid guys!
Fully agree.
> But honestly: I will stick more to OSS if this EULA madness should go
> on...
CodeGear, bring back the initial Borland EULA concept "treat it as a
book".
Doei RIF
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> A highly configurable palette is of no value if I cannot configure it
> to suit me.
..and whether or not it suits you doesn't change the fact that it suits
many others.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Jolyon Smith
[TeamB] says...
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
>
> > The Delphi 2007 palette is unusable right out of the box
>
> I guess you are pretty alone with your opinion (although I'm sure that
> all who agree with you will come out of the woodwork now <g>).
Then you guess wrong. I guess you don't read Nick Hodges blog (or do so
only selectively).
But then I know you weren't being serious - just another example of your
"argument by unsubstantiate statement" technique.
> I very much prefer the current palette. It shows me many more items at
> once
No need to regurgitate the whole sorry discussion but the old palette +
GExperts (free!) gave a much more useFUL palette. The new palette may
be more usABLE, in that it has more ways of being used, but CHOICE is
not intrinsically of value.
A choice of 3000 display drivers for Windows is of no value whatsoever
if the display card I use isn't supported by any of them.
A highly configurable palette is of no value if I cannot configure it to
suit me.
The introduction of keyboard searching is a tacit acceptance of the fact
that the new palette falls short - you shouldn't have to be
required/able to remember the class name of the component you need.
> so I can see at least 6 or 7 tabs at
> once) than the old palette
... requiring a fair amount of hoop jumping and screen real estate
sacrifice in order to be able even to to see the full NAMES of those
tabs.
> (and of course, finding a component is much
> simpler - although that is not so important, to me)
Easier how? It is harder to get a usable palette with all tab names
visible, for one thing.
You can of course search by keyboard if you know what the name is, or
consists of (this is the stand by argument of everyone that claims the
new palette is "easier" to use).
I guess this is why supermarkets put big signs up on their aisles saying
"Gro...", "Bak...", "Dai...", "Fru...", "Sta..." and provide a useful
facility where by you can start typing the name of a specific product in
order to find it in the store, e.g. "apples" .....
Then choose from "apple sauce", "apple juice", "apples, fresh", "dried
apple slices"....
Bit of a palava if you know you want apples from the Fruit aisle, if you
ask me.
;)
Of course, if you really loved this facility so much you could of course
get it added to your old palette for free.
> The old palette
> was rigid and far less usable, and only showed one tab at a time.
Funny, my D5 palette is currently showing 41 tabs. I can see each tab's
name in FULL. Each tab is able to present just over 50 components -
more than enough for my "Commonly used" tab to contain just about every
component I ever use.
Now of course, this is Old Palette + GExperts.
On my 16:9 monitor that palette adds the equivalent of 2 tool bar strips
to the height of the IDE "application bar" - an additional 2 toolbar
strips that provides some convenient extra room for additional commonly
used IDE tools:
________________________________________________
|Delphi_________________________________________X|
| | |
| tools | (palette) |
|__________|_____________________________________|
(not to scale) LOL
On the same monitor the RAD Studio "application bar" is desperately
sparse. I cannot arrange my palette so that I can see all tabs AND see
their names in full without givin up about 20% of my monitor width -
i.e. a full height vertical dock (and I don't get that back when I'm
editing code).
2 or 3 __LINES__ lost to a higher application toolbar that get's
occasional use is a MUCH better compromise than losing 20 __COLUMNS__.
But by the by - if I were to be happy to lose that much screen real
estate I could at least see all the tab names, but to open a tab to gain
access to it's components I have to aim for the TINY [+] target or
DOUBLE CLICK it, even when AUTO-COLLAPSE is on!! (Where is "AUTO-
EXPAND?")
Even in a full width arrangement (requires undocking or ZERO side docks)
I cannot see the full names of all tabs. With Hz flow sometimes I can
NEVER see the name of a tab, if it doesn't contain enough components.
And the ideal Component Palette configuration doesn't really work very
well for it's other personality as a "Tool Palette".
In fact, this "built in" set of tools shows the palettes shortcomings
off perfectly.
With "Expand All", horizontal tabs, I have 3 tabs called "D." and 2 more
tabs called "Del..."
Oh so VERY useful.
Sheesh.
--
JS
TWorld.Create.Free;
Bruce McGee
Have you found any good replacements that do what you want?
--
Regards,
Bruce McGee
Glooscap Software
Peter Zemtz
then I will make the switch, not because FPC is free, but because I need
crossplatform. I'm still waiting with crossplatform until porting my code
costs less time. And then I won't go back to Delphi for the same reason
(lack of time), even if Delphi has more features.
Bob Dawson
>
> ... requiring a fair amount of hoop jumping and screen real estate
> sacrifice
???
Specifically--from a default/reset configuration in Default Layout:
1. Unpin the Project manager and Palette so that they act as fly-outs, and
either gets the full screen height to use when called.
2. On the Palette, right click and select Properties.... On the main
options, uncheck the "Show Button Captions" checkbox. Click OK.
Without reordering the Categories (which I do to suit my own use), I now see
at one time the Category label and full contents of
Standard,Dialogs,System,Additional,Win32,BDE,DataAccess, Data Controls,
dbExpress, DataSnap, TeeChart Std, Interbase, and dbGo--obviously way more
than the sinble category the old palatte showed, and using way less real
estate.
For a session devoted to visual form layout, just temporarily pin the
Palette again.
bobD
Q Correll
| But I think that this is an invalid condition here in germany.
My attorney says it's not enforceable here in the US too.
--
Q
12/09/2007 17:35:01
Levend Sener [Think-Factory]
> Michael,
>
> > But I think that this is an invalid condition here in germany.
>
> My attorney says it's not enforceable here in the US too.
So the question arises: why is CG putting such a BS in their EULA?
A new way to make new friends???
Levend.
Tony Caduto
>
> CodeGear, bring back the initial Borland EULA concept "treat it as a
> book".
>
We can probably blame the loss of the No Nonsense License agreement to
some dip shit lawyer.
Tony Caduto
> So the question arises: why is CG putting such a BS in their EULA?
> A new way to make new friends???
>
Stupid Lawyers I guess.
Marco Caspers
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
>
> > A highly configurable palette is of no value if I cannot configure
> > it to suit me.
>
> ..and whether or not it suits you doesn't change the fact that it
> suits many others.
Ah, but the phrase "I guess you are pretty alone with your opinion"
sparked that message. It wasn't denied that there are people that like
the new palette, but to say that almost everyone is liking the new
palette (the way i interpret the phrase) is a very very long stretch.
If you'd say that it's 50/50 then i'd say you're painting a more
realistic picture of the situation.
The best thing that could happen to Delphi apart from becoming 1000x
faster in everything, up to date in looks and technology, and vastly
more stable is that the option of selecting the old palette format is
implemented so everyone who likes the new one can use that, and
everyone who likes the old one can use the old one, that way more
people will be happy with the product.
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
> Ah, but the phrase "I guess you are pretty alone with your opinion"
> sparked that message.
Fair enough <g>
> If you'd say that it's 50/50 then i'd say you're painting a more
> realistic picture of the situation.
..and that figure comes from...?
--
Dave Nottage [TeamB]
Christian Kaufmann
>easy as the BPL system in Delphi...
I don't know Lazarus and I have no plans to use it. But packages in
Delphi is a pain too sometimes. If you have dependent packages and
make a change to one of these and recompile fails because of an error,
all get's unstable.
I would like to see a mode where I can see "deactivate all packages".
Then I can rebuild all my packages and if everything is fine I say,
"activate packages".
Right now I build my packages outside the IDE with Finalbuilder and if
I made mistakes in my code I edit the .pas files with a normal text
editor because at that time, the IDE cannot be launched easily because
of incompatible packages.
cu Christian
Sanyin
Delphi.
Sometimes its 300% faster in simply functions, sometimes FPC is slower, but
in general , delphi is slower.
I think theres for example diff. in recursive optimization.
And FPU is handled very well on FPC, altought I am not ASM guru....
OBones
I know, but at least it works in most cases and does not force us to
recompile the IDE itself...
Caleb Hattingh
How can you make these claims, without any evidence whatsoever?
For example, on the win32 compiler shootout:
http://dada.perl.it/shootout/delphi.html
It is not immediately clear that the delphi compiler lags behind fpc.
For instance, since you mention FPU specifically:
http://dada.perl.it/shootout/matrix.html
Delphi appears perform acceptably.
Michael Fritz
<news:xn0fer5h7...@newsgroups.borland.com>:
> According to German law the latter is really not valid (here in
> Germany). German law says that I can sell a license whenever I want to
> whoever I want, after I legally purchased it.
> Why do US lawyers always think that US laws are also valid outside the
> US? Stupid guys!
Probably you are right! No - of course you are right in case you bought a
physically available software product (with CD, DVD).
As far as I know it is not valid if it is a downloadable product which is
bound to a named person with a unique license number. At least a made this
experience with some computer games which may apply to other software, too.
--
cu,
Michael
Sanyin
"Caleb Hattingh" <caleb.hatti...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:475d...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Sanyin wrote:
> For example, on the win32 compiler shootout:
>
> http://dada.perl.it/shootout/delphi.html
>
> It is not immediately clear that the delphi compiler lags behind fpc. For
> instance, since you mention FPU specifically:
>
> http://dada.perl.it/shootout/matrix.html
>
Its not true for new (2.2 ) fpc
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/pascal.php
Paul Nichols [TeamB]
> There is much noise in the Lazarus group in recent days. Since Lazarus
> 0.9.25 and FPC 2.2 are out. I get 100 or 200 mails per day, before maybe
> 40 or 50. The new IDE looks very professional. The compiler is very
> ahead of Delphi.
>
One of my real complaints about FPC and Lazarus, is how difficult it is
to get it working properly; especially true when attempting to do updates.
My question is, why don't they take the time to make both available
through apt-get and yum? For modern Linux or Open Solaris based
application installation, it is very short sided that they do not offer
these typical install options. I am also willing to bet, that if they
did make FPC and Lazarus part of the standard repositories for Red Hat
based repos and Debian based distros as well, it would attract much more
attention.
I think FPC is very good for Object Pascal (aka Delphi language) and is
a viable solution for native Linux, Windows, and Mac based development
(not so great for Mac right now, bu improving). But it is a royal pain
to set up. Once you get it working it works well enough. But Lazarus is
no where near as polished as Delphi IDE.
What I normally do is run Delphi under Wine and then build my FPC apps
from the command line. The Delphi IDE is so much better and 10 times
more stable, than the Lazarus IDE.
Levend Sener [Think-Factory]
Michael,
this shouldn't make a difference at all because I can/could buy the
media independently from the license... just check the CG online store.
Levend.
Sanyin
>> Hmm...Its bad to se how much (but not always) FPC code is faster than
>> Delphi.
>> Sometimes its 300% faster in simply functions, sometimes FPC is slower,
>> but in general , delphi is slower.
>> I think theres for example diff. in recursive optimization.
>> And FPU is handled very well on FPC, altought I am not ASM guru....
>
> How can you make these claims, without any evidence whatsoever?
>
> For example, on the win32 compiler shootout:
>
> http://dada.perl.it/shootout/delphi.html
>
> It is not immediately clear that the delphi compiler lags behind fpc. For
> instance, since you mention FPU specifically:
This matrix in test is Integer matrix.
Aslo FPC used here is 7 years old.
Its better much now, I doubt delphi compiler is.?
Robert Giesecke
Didn't you read the EU *after* buying and downloading it?
Then, the whole thing shouldn't have much effect on you, just like no rip-off contract has, that tries
to impose anything on you after you bought it. (Well, in Germany at least)
You have to accept it, to install it. Thus you can do so without really accepting anything, the EULA
still shouldn't have any effect. (There was a court case about it some time ago)
IMO, business practices like this should be prosecuted draconianly, protecting people against those
rip-offs is clearly not enough...
I am not a lawyer, but that's what I read all over the internet about US EULAs vs German law.
Alan Garny
news:475d14f0$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Rod wrote:
>> There is much noise in the Lazarus group in recent days. Since Lazarus
>> 0.9.25 and FPC 2.2 are out. I get 100 or 200 mails per day, before maybe
>> 40 or 50. The new IDE looks very professional. The compiler is very
>> feature rich. I guess it is just a question of time Lazarus would be
>> ahead of Delphi.
>>
>> What is the strategy of CG for Delphi?
>
> One of my real complaints about FPC and Lazarus, is how difficult it is to
> get it working properly; especially true when attempting to do updates.
Yes, I tried to set it up under Linux Mint yesterday and gave up very
quickly: I cannot be bothered anymore with spending hours trying to get
something to work. The Windows version installed fine, but I was able to get
Lazarus to crash within a couple of minutes (see my other message in this
thread), so that did it for me.
> My question is, why don't they take the time to make both available
> through apt-get and yum? For modern Linux or Open Solaris based
> application installation, it is very short sided that they do not offer
> these typical install options. I am also willing to bet, that if they did
> make FPC and Lazarus part of the standard repositories for Red Hat based
> repos and Debian based distros as well, it would attract much more
> attention.
Isn't Ubuntu the most popular Linux distribution? If anything, they may then
probably want to target that distribution.
Alan.
Sanyin
"Hamer" <em...@address.com> wrote in message
news:475d5157$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> >
>> What is the strategy of CG for Delphi?
>
> Delphi has a lot of bugs, but compared to Lazarus..
>
> You were asking the group, not CodeGear. Nick is a little low profile
> these days..
>
> I don't think a specific Lazarus/Open source strategy is needed. CodeGear
> has the first mover advantage and if CodeGear supports unicode by default
> Delphi will be the cash cow for a long time..
I would suggest using advanced Uniscribe functions when using unicode text
drawing.
There are so many problems with unicode and TextOut functions (when writing
third party code)....
TNTUnicode components are using Win32 translation .
ELPack uses (I think beta ) uniscribe for drawing (prob.HTML)
...
Hamer
> What is the strategy of CG for Delphi?
http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=22409#22409
Delphi has a lot of bugs, but compared to Lazarus..
You were asking the group, not CodeGear. Nick is a little low profile these
days..
I don't think a specific Lazarus/Open source strategy is needed. CodeGear
has the first mover advantage and if CodeGear supports unicode by default
Delphi will be the cash cow for a long time..
Professional users need professional tools.
But first they have to fix the context menu problems of update 3.. Nick!
Best regards,
Hamer
Nigel Tavendale
> US?
It's a fairly common selective myopia. There are no other countries in the
world. Diddn't you know that?
In all fairness copyright and patent laws vary wildly all over the world.
In some places, like China, they simply have no word for copyright. It would
be impossible to write an EULA that would comply with all of them so
Codegear just writes one for their country of origin (the US). Half of it
is probably null and void elsewhere (due to conflicts with statutes in
Europe/South America or common law decisions elsewhere).
"Levend Sener [Think-Factory]" <Levend[DOT]Sener[AT]think-factory[DOT]de>
wrote in message news:xn0fer5h7...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Michael Trowe wrote:
>
>> ...
>> The only point I condemn, is that they forbid to sell an unused
>> license. But I think that this is an invalid condition here in
>> germany.
>
> According to German law the latter is really not valid (here in
> Germany). German law says that I can sell a license whenever I want to
> whoever I want, after I legally purchased it.
> Why do US lawyers always think that US laws are also valid outside the
> US? Stupid guys!
>
> Anyway, we should be glad that CG allows us to install the software for
> which we purchased full licenses! <vbg>
>
> But honestly: I will stick more to OSS if this EULA madness should go
> on...
>
> Levend.
Marco van de Voort
> Jolyon Smith wrote:
>
>> The Delphi 2007 palette is unusable right out of the box
>
> I guess you are pretty alone with your opinion (although I'm sure that
> all who agree with you will come out of the woodwork now <g>).
>
> "lines" of glyphs in the palette, so I can see at least 6 or 7 tabs at
> once) than the old palette (and of course, finding a component is much
> simpler - although that is not so important, to me). The old palette
> was rigid and far less usable, and only showed one tab at a time.
(the Lazarus one is a hybrid. Right click on it to search for component and
see the other options)
Marco van de Voort
> Sanyin wrote:
>> Hmm...Its bad to se how much (but not always) FPC code is faster than
>> Delphi.
>> Sometimes its 300% faster in simply functions, sometimes FPC is slower, but
>> in general , delphi is slower.
>> I think theres for example diff. in recursive optimization.
>> And FPU is handled very well on FPC, altought I am not ASM guru....
>
> How can you make these claims, without any evidence whatsoever?
>
> For example, on the win32 compiler shootout:
>
> http://dada.perl.it/shootout/delphi.html
That compiler is 6 years old. 2.2 runs circles around 1.0.4
> It is not immediately clear that the delphi compiler lags behind fpc.
Note that for a fair benchmark one must compare FPC 2.2 to Delphi 2005 or up
(preferably D2006 even). This because otherwise the use of inline in the RTL
might skew results.
Note also that Delphi has a lots of highly specialised assembler internal,
while FPC tries to keep the amount of assembler down due to platform
concerns.
Marco van de Voort
> Rod wrote:
>> There is much noise in the Lazarus group in recent days. Since Lazarus
>> 0.9.25 and FPC 2.2 are out. I get 100 or 200 mails per day, before maybe
>> 40 or 50. The new IDE looks very professional. The compiler is very
>> feature rich. I guess it is just a question of time Lazarus would be
>> ahead of Delphi.
>>
>> What is the strategy of CG for Delphi?
>
> One of my real complaints about FPC and Lazarus, is how difficult it is
> to get it working properly; especially true when attempting to do updates.
>
> My question is, why don't they take the time to make both available
> through apt-get and yum? For modern Linux or Open Solaris based
> application installation, it is very short sided that they do not offer
> these typical install options. I am also willing to bet, that if they
> did make FPC and Lazarus part of the standard repositories for Red Hat
> based repos and Debian based distros as well, it would attract much more
> attention.
They are nowadays. 2.2 comes on the FC8 DVD, and also Debian is not as
lagging as it used to be.
Moreover FPC is getting its own apt-get for components,
(but on source level, with autobuild+in stall) though I expect it will take
another year to fully flesh out (we are now in the initial stages of
converting the base repository)
Didier Gasser-Morlay
I did a fresh install last night (coincidence!) on PcLinuxOs which as a
beta of the last lazarus build and it worked out of the box (granted it
came for my distrib's repositories). No crash, only annoyance is that on
a dual screen monitor all dialogs default to the center of both screens
.... ie I've got to move them around. and the palette is a tab slow to
respond.
I tried Lazarus a few months back and gave up quickly and I am now
fairly impressed with progress made and will start doing some serious
testing on Linux. It it works there then I'll port a few things from
Linux to Windows.
But for the time being D2007 is my product of choice. I may revisit that
since my d2007 has started crashing unexpectedly since I installed
Update 3 3 days ago :((((
Didier
Marco van de Voort
> Rod wrote:
>
>> I guess it is just a question of time Lazarus would be ahead of Delphi.
>
> cross-platform support. It is roughly comparable in other areas (IDE, LCL versus
> VCL), and behind in others - DB support, packages, and help (versus D7, anyway).
A CHM based help became available last week. Will be resolved soon I hope.
The FPC internal documenting tool (which is also perfectly usable for
Delphi, though more geared towards documenting libs then apps) is starting
to push out CHM.
> So it really depends on the nature of the computing problem you are trying to
> solve, rather than it being better or worse on average than Delphi.
> I must say that I do perceive that the Windows version is the "poor cousin", but
> for an open source project being pushed by a relatively small number of
> developers it is remarkably professional.
Thanks. The Carbon version is also a feat IMHO.
Q Correll
| So the question arises: why is CG putting such a BS in their EULA?
Damifino.
--
Q
12/10/2007 08:18:00
Michael Anonymous
> There is much noise in the Lazarus group in recent days. Since Lazarus
> 0.9.25 and FPC 2.2 are out. I get 100 or 200 mails per day, before maybe
> 40 or 50. The new IDE looks very professional. The compiler is very
> ahead of Delphi.
Try putting some buttons on a form and setting their events.
Why?
Well, I couldn't set the events on both both Windows and Linux.
Tony Caduto
> Try putting some buttons on a form and setting their events.
> Why?
> Well, I couldn't set the events on both both Windows and Linux.
>
>
Worked for me just fine on XP Pro 64bit edition.
Are you sure you downloaded the latest version?
Jolyon Smith
> "Jolyon Smith" wrote
> >
> > ... requiring a fair amount of hoop jumping and screen real estate
> > sacrifice
>
> ???
Hoops follow....
> Specifically--from a default/reset configuration in Default Layout:
> 1. Unpin the Project manager and Palette so that they act as fly-outs, and
> either gets the full screen height to use when called.
> 2. On the Palette, right click and select Properties.... On the main
> options, uncheck the "Show Button Captions" checkbox. Click OK.
:)
Admittedly previously there were 3 steps (actually, in yours there is
also a 3rd step, which we'll come back to...), so the old 3 Steps To
Happiness were:
1. Install GExperts
2. Set Multiline tabs in Component palette ON
3. Forget about it.
The difference is that the old 3rd step is a wry addition. In the new
palette the 3rd step is a recurring activity triggered every time you
want to spend more than a trivial amount of time in the form designer
(and then back again), so really it's a 3rd..Nth step where N tends
towards infinity.
:)
> For a session devoted to visual form layout, just temporarily pin the
> Palette again.
With the old palette, no need to pin/unpin/fiddle with palette settings
according to type of work being done - I can switch effortlessly between
coding and form design without having to fiddle with anything.
Sure it's a compromise, but it's a compromise that works well for
both/all activities, which is kind of what a compromise is intended to
do. No?
;)
--
JS
TWorld.Create.Free;
Herbert Sitz
> Q Correll wrote:
>
> > Michael,
> >
> > > But I think that this is an invalid condition here in germany.
> >
>
> So the question arises: why is CG putting such a BS in their EULA?
>
> Levend.
Because even if it's not legally enforceable it will scare a few people into
not buying copies of Delphi off ebay.
I'm pretty sure that the value of whatever few extra sales they get from
someone who buys from Codegear instead of an ebayer is wiped out by the
erosion of good will and lost sales they create merely by including
restrictive and probably unenforceable terms like that. But, hey, they can
run the company into the ground however they like.
-- Herb Sitz
Markus.Humm
I recently tried it for WinCE and it failed misserably!
It needed to recompile the IDE and failed bitterly when doing since the
source to be compiled contained various syntax errors. And now?
I've given up on that because I've no time for playing around with some
source I don't know. Later somebody said that WinCE support was still
experimental or so. The website didn't say that clearly if I remember
correctly...
Greetings
Markus
Markus.Humm
and I once learned that most EULAs do contain non enforceable parts, but
unfortunatelly I didn't learn which and why...
Shouldn't EULAs be constructed by attorneys? SHouldn't they know better?
Greetings
Markus
Bob Dawson
>
> 1. Install GExperts
> 2. Set Multiline tabs in Component palette ON
> 3. Forget about it.
Never liked that--took up way too much screen space displaying a bunch of
labels I never used. I now set it up once, and see the tabs I actually need
in a sort order I control. Or nothing at all but the fly out tabs.
> With the old palette, no need to pin/unpin/fiddle with palette settings
At the cost of devoting an inch and a half or more of screen space that is
totally unneeded the vast majority of the time.
> which is kind of what a compromise is intended to
> do. No?
Why compromise when I can have the palette appear exactly when I want it,
and go away the rest of the time?
bobD
Graeme Geldenhuys
>
> Create new, more restrictive EULAs? :-(
>
> See: http://dn.codegear.com/article/37457
>
Their license still makes no sense!!
Read the section "Transfer of the License". "ACME hires Bob to replace
Andrew" but then in the next line CodeGear transfers the license to
'Bill'. Who the hell is Bill??? ACME hired Bob, not Bill! CodeGear
never seems to get anything right! :-)
Oh, maybe it's the hidden Microsoft Tax clause... by default everything
goes to Bill. ;-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
Graeme Geldenhuys
>
> Is it still the same pain to install a package in Lazarus ?
> Last time I tried, I had to recompile the IDE, and that's no way near as
> easy as the BPL system in Delphi...
Yeah, but you forgot to mention the IDE takes all of 30 seconds to
recompile on a Intel P4 2.0GHz processor. Not to mention they give you
a nice pretty dialog to do it. Mostly you just click "Build".
Also I think you must read up on Lazarus Packages. They are not the same
as Delphi's BPL packages. They are more like BPL packages on steroids.
Lazarus packages keep Path information, Compiler Information etc... Add
a package as a requirement to a project and all those setting get set
for you in the project. Simply awesome!
Fiddling with Delphi's Path settings suck!
Regards,
- Graeme -
Graeme Geldenhuys
> something to work. The Windows version installed fine, but I was able to
> get Lazarus to crash within a couple of minutes (see my other message in
> this thread), so that did it for me.
Nobody can review a product fully in a couple of minutes! Our company
moved over from Delphi 7 to FPC and Lazarus three years ago. It took us
about a month to get truly familiar with the IDE and compiler. Now if I
need to maintain some old products under Delphi 7, I get truly
frustrated. Half the time I cannot find the options I need in the menus.
It's all about what you are used to. Bottom line is, we needed a
cross-platform solution and Borland had no plans on supporting anything
other than Microsoft. Kylix and CLX was a bad joke!
Regards,
- Graeme -
Graeme Geldenhuys
> Delphi has a lot of bugs, but compared to Lazarus..
One thing you forgot to mention. The speed things get fixed and the
support is a 1000 times better compared to what we got from Borland. I
can only hope CodeGear does better.
My quickest turnaround time from reporting a bug in Lazarus to getting
the fix on my computer: 15 minutes!
Today again. I reported a bug in Mantis and 4 hours later I got a email
to try the latest revision which included the fix. I seriously doubt
CodeGear can every beat that - the speed things get fixed in FPC or
Lazarus is truly amazing.
Oh and almost forgot. The other good thing is that you have all the
source code. Don't want to wait for a simple fix, then fix it yourself
and submit a patch. We are developers after all! ;-)
Regards,
- Graeme -
Graeme Geldenhuys
> Well, I couldn't set the events on both both Windows and Linux.
And you call yourself a programmer? ;-)
Graeme.
Mat Ballard
> Right now I build my packages outside the IDE with Finalbuilder and if
> I made mistakes in my code I edit the .pas files with a normal text
> editor because at that time, the IDE cannot be launched easily because
> of incompatible packages.
I ended up writing test apps that create and exercise all new components
dynamically - that way it isn't the IDE that becomes unstable, it's the app -
which is a lot easier to debug.
Marius
very little choice. You should only recompile the lcl, not ide units
(had problems there also). Report the problem if you can.
Q Correll
| Who the hell is Bill??? ACME hired Bob, not Bill!
ROFLMAO!
--
Q
12/10/2007 19:22:46
Stig Johansen
> Didn't you read the EU *after* buying and downloading it?
> Then, the whole thing shouldn't have much effect on you, just like no
> rip-off contract has, that tries to impose anything on you after you
> bought it. (Well, in Germany at least)
FYI, it's the same here in Denmark. I would _guess_ it's the same iin all EU
contries.
--
Best regards
Stig Johansen
Caleb Hattingh
> Note that for a fair benchmark one must compare FPC 2.2 to Delphi 2005 or up
> (preferably D2006 even). This because otherwise the use of inline in the RTL
> might skew results.
>
> Note also that Delphi has a lots of highly specialised assembler internal,
> while FPC tries to keep the amount of assembler down due to platform
> concerns.
Hi Marco
This is the original comment Sanyin made:
********
Hmm...Its bad to se how much (but not always) FPC code is faster than
Delphi.
Sometimes its 300% faster in simply functions, sometimes FPC is slower, but
in general , delphi is slower.
I think theres for example diff. in recursive optimization.
And FPU is handled very well on FPC, altought I am not ASM guru....
********
Now, personally, I think fpc and the lazarus project is great. I don't
particularly care too strongly about which compiler is faster, or which
produces faster code. However, even after Sanyin's and your replies, I
still fail to see evidence of the claims made in the above post.
Unsubstantiated claims like these are /bad/ for the fpc project.
I would love to see some benchmark comparisons though :)
David M
For example, I have a Mac, and really miss Delphi. I'd like to help say
with the IDE and Cocoa (since OSX is moving away from Carbon.)
I did download Lazarus a while back, but it only ran under XWindows so I
didn't end up doing much.
Cheers,
David
"Marco van de Voort" <mar...@stack.nl> wrote in message
news:slrnflqmcl...@snail.stack.nl...
Sanyin
> I would love to see some benchmark comparisons though :)
>
>
>
some heavy FPU code...You can even use those functions on these
sites...Compare, and you'll see
Michael Fritz
> Shouldn't EULAs be constructed by attorneys? SHouldn't they know better?
Perhaps they should, but they are paid by their clients and I would assume
they put everything legal or illegal into an EULA just to satisfy their
customers at the end.
Mostly if one paragraph is not legal in other countries it will not affect
the rest of an EULA so the guys who invent such beasts won't have to fear
anything.
--
cu,
Michael
Markus.Humm
> Simply awesome!
Not impressed too much...
>
> Fiddling with Delphi's Path settings suck!
>
Rebuilding Lazarus for WinCE sucks! (because the source to be compiled
has syntax errors!)
Greetings
Markus
Markus.Humm
> I know, but since laz is the only thing native on that platform there's
> very little choice. You should only recompile the lcl, not ide units
> (had problems there also). Report the problem if you can.
>
Hello,
1. I'm new to Lazarus so I don't know how to do it other than
using the UI provided.
2. you shouldn't use top quoting please. It makes reading posts harder.
Greetings
Markus
Markus.Humm
If that's true, why don't you do this and provide the results?
Greetings
Markus
thaddy
Marius <mar...@nospam.com> wrote:
>I know, but since laz is the only thing native on that platform there's
>very little choice. You should only recompile the lcl, not ide
Yup and the instructions are quite clear
>Markus.Humm wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I recently tried it for WinCE and it failed misserably!
Use KOL and MCK, not the standard LCL.
Lazarus is still a mess -though lesser so than before-, but FPC works quite comfortable for WINCE development. I must say I only use the KOL widget set, not the LCL. I am able to obtain quite complex xplatform win32 and wince applications. But as I wrote without using a RAD environment.
But KOL's MCK is also available for Lazarus + WINCE and works quite good as a RAD for KOL under lazarus.
Sanyin
"Markus.Humm" <marku...@freenet.de> wrote in message
news:475e4a40$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
I dont need the results.I have tested before, so I have results.
And I dont use lazarus at all.
If you want to benchmark, try any of these functions
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/pascal.php
and compare them....
Alan Garny
news:475db503$1...@newsgroups.borland.com...
> Alan Garny wrote:
>> something to work. The Windows version installed fine, but I was able to
>> get Lazarus to crash within a couple of minutes (see my other message in
>> this thread), so that did it for me.
> Nobody can review a product fully in a couple of minutes!
Did I ever say that the couple of minutes I spent looking at Lazarus were a
full review? Nope, I did not. All I said was that I got Lazarus to crash
within a couple of minutes, which for me is not a good sign. When a piece of
software like Lazarus cannot even handle a very simple thing such as a
resizing the main window, then it makes me wonder how well it can handle
more complicated tasks...
> Our company moved over from Delphi 7 to FPC and Lazarus three years ago.
> It took us about a month to get truly familiar with the IDE and compiler.
> Now if I need to maintain some old products under Delphi 7, I get truly
> frustrated. Half the time I cannot find the options I need in the menus.
> It's all about what you are used to.
True, but not the point here.
> Bottom line is, we needed a cross-platform solution and Borland had no
> plans on supporting anything other than Microsoft. Kylix and CLX was a bad
> joke!
Agreed, unfortunately... :(
Graeme Geldenhuys
>
> I would love to see some benchmark comparisons though :)
>
OK, so I took the 'matix' source code from the Delphi test. Compiled it
with FPC 2.2.0 and Delphi 7. Both produce the same output to the
console, so I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to compare them.
What measuring system or tool do I use? The website doesn't give much
clues in that either.
Regards,
- Graeme -
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> In article <xn0fer0gm...@newsgroups.borland.com>, Rudy Velthuis
> [TeamB] says...
> > Jolyon Smith wrote:
> >
> > > The Delphi 2007 palette is unusable right out of the box
> >
> > I guess you are pretty alone with your opinion (although I'm sure
> > that all who agree with you will come out of the woodwork now <g>).
>
> Then you guess wrong.
I don't think I guess wrong, in this case.
> I guess you don't read Nick Hodges blog (or do
> so only selectively).
I don't read many blogs. You guessed right.
> But then I know you weren't being serious
Yes, I am very serious. I am pretty sure that most users have started
to like the new palette (but, as I said, I'm sure that those who don't
will come to your rescue now).
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Asswhole = a complete ass" -- John McTaggart in bpot
S
I just created a simple app (with the latest lazarus 0.9.24)...
added just a TLabel, TEdit & a TButton to a blank form...
compile...
exe size... 11.2MB (wow must be a really lot of processing going on there
hey??? :)
Anyway I've been following lazarus for a long time, but .exe size is a big
concern for me... and each new version seems to bloat up the exe even more
substantially than the last...
S.
"Sanyin" <prevo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:475c...@newsgroups.borland.com...
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Without reordering the Categories (which I do to suit my own use), I
> now see at one time the Category label and full contents of
> Standard,Dialogs,System,Additional,Win32,BDE,DataAccess, Data
> Controls, dbExpress, DataSnap, TeeChart Std, Interbase, and
> dbGo--obviously way more than the sinble category the old palatte
> showed, and using way less real estate.
Indeed.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Ever notice when you blow in a dog's face he gets mad at you,
but when you take him in a car he sticks his head out the
window?" -- George Carlin
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> 1. Install GExperts
> 2. Set Multiline tabs in Component palette ON
Multiline tabs won't show you the CONTENTS of multiple tabs at once. In
D7, you can, at any one time, only see the contents of one tab, no
matter whether you have multiline tabs or not. You can't do this:
http://rvelthuis.de/images/palette.png
There, I can see 180 components (yes, I counted them) in 8 tabs at
once. The D7 palette can't do that.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Now comes the mystery"
-- Henry Ward Beecher, dying words, March 8, 1887
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> > The old palette
> > was rigid and far less usable, and only showed one tab at a time.
>
> Funny, my D5 palette is currently showing 41 tabs. I can see each
> tab's name in FULL. Each tab is able to present just over 50
> components - more than enough for my "Commonly used" tab to contain
> just about every component I ever use.
I don't need to see all tabs. Who cares? I hardly use all of them.
Multiline tabs are totally useless, for me. In D7, I arranged the tabs
I often eed to the left of the screen, and didn't care about the ones
that fell off the right side.
But I want to see the CONTENTS of ALL the tabs I regularly use. The new
palette enables that. I posted this already in another post:
http://rvelthuis.de/images/palette.png
In D7 I can do what I want, but I can only expand one tab at once. That
is rigid and completely useless to me. To me, that is like an editor
which can only show one event handler at a time, like the old VB editor.
I don't have to see 50 components in one tab (none of the tabs I
regularly use have 50 components), I want to see all the components, in
several tabs I use, at once.
If I needed more components at once, I could make the palette even
higher still. You can't do such things with the D7 palette (multiple
rows of tabs don't help a lot - I want to see the contents of several
tabs at once).
So yes, I was very serious. Compared to the new palette, the old one is
too rigid and much less useful, to me.
> With "Expand All", horizontal tabs, I have 3 tabs called "D." and 2
> more tabs called "Del..."
Huh? You must have tried some weird setup, really.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in
the guise of fighting a foreign enemy."
-- James Madison
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> Thats an interesting question, what will an open source compiler and
> editor do with Delphi (given some time).
Probably they'll try to catch up. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"I think there is a world market for maybe five computers."
-- Thomas Watson (1874-1956), Chairman of IBM, 1943
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> > ..and whether or not it suits you doesn't change the fact that it
> > suits many others.
>
> Ah, but the phrase "I guess you are pretty alone with your opinion"
> sparked that message.
And it was an educated guess.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Elegance is not a dispensable luxury but a factor that decides
between success and failure." -- Edsger Dijkstra
Caleb Hattingh
>
> What measuring system or tool do I use? The website doesn't give much
> clues in that either.
I see what you mean. The original shootout page seems to be gone. You
could try to get the methodology details from the original shootout page
off the wayback machine, but it is probably easier just to perform
timings yourself with the same input for each.
Marius
> Marius wrote:
>
>> Thats an interesting question, what will an open source compiler and
>> editor do with Delphi (given some time).
>
> Probably they'll try to catch up. <g>
I thought it was the other way around ;-)
:P
Marius
can strip the debug info with the tool "strip". Then still executable
size is ~twice as much as delphi (but that could just be resources? no
idea, never looked)
Marius
> Did I ever say that the couple of minutes I spent looking at Lazarus
> were a full review? Nope, I did not. All I said was that I got Lazarus
> to crash within a couple of minutes, which for me is not a good sign.
> When a piece of software like Lazarus cannot even handle a very simple
> thing such as a resizing the main window, then it makes me wonder how
> well it can handle more complicated tasks...
Thats fair, it reminds me off bds2005, installed it, loaded the first
demo and while loading ide would crash ;-) That was solved later but
because of this it made a real bad impression here..
GrandmasterB
> I recently tried it for WinCE and it failed misserably!
> source to be compiled contained various syntax errors. And now?
I think you're doing something wrong then. There's a cross-compiler add-on
you can download and install (for Lazarus on Windows). You dont have to
rebuild the IDE. You download and install Lazarus, and then download and
install the ARM cross compiler add-on. Then in lazarus you just change the
target to wince/arm, and you're good to go. I did this with the latest
official lazarus release, and it worked perfectly out of the box. Once they
were installed it literally only took minutes to have a hello world program
running in a pocket pc emulator.
GrandmasterB
inou...@gmail.com
> Well did u ever compare the size of the .exe spewed out by lazarus???
> I just created a simple app (with the latest lazarus 0.9.24)...
> added just a TLabel, TEdit & a TButton to a blank form...
> compile...
> exe size... 11.2MB (wow must be a really lot of processing going on there
> hey??? :)
>
> Anyway I've been following lazarus for a long time, but .exe size is a big
> concern for me... and each new version seems to bloat up the exe even more
> substantially than the last...
I just test it and it is 1140 ko on Windows, by not including debug
info and smart linking ( compiler options dialogs ). For more
informations see http://wiki.freepascal.org/Size_Matters
Jolyon Smith
> "Jolyon Smith" wrote
> >
> > 1. Install GExperts
> > 2. Set Multiline tabs in Component palette ON
>
> Never liked that--took up way too much screen space displaying a bunch of
> labels I never used.
Wonders.... why did you never "organise" your palette so that all your
components would fit on the 6-10 tabs that could easily fit even in a
single line tab palette..... ?
> > With the old palette, no need to pin/unpin/fiddle with palette settings
>
> At the cost of devoting an inch and a half or more of screen space that is
> totally unneeded the vast majority of the time.
Well, 50% of that 1 /12 inches is sitting there wasted ALL of the time
in D2007.... just look at all that stubbornly empty space in your app
bar and just try docking something there in the all singing all dancing
all docking IDE....
In D7, the extra 3/4 inch provides a useful bit of room to stack in a
couple extra toolbars with some often used IDE tools, all conveniently
bunched together in the top/left area of the app bar - very ergonomic.
It could be less than 3/4" of course, depending on how many
components/tabs and how much tab organising you bother with.
;)
And then there's the "I'm coding but I need to look up the help for
property/method/events of component Y"... in D7, click the component in
the palette (maybe ONE preceding click to select the tab first) strike
F1.
In D2007, switch to form design, wait for the palette to reconfigure,
find the tab, find the component, or start typing the name - either
complete in full or pick from options or maybe complete in full and
STILL have to pick from options...... draw breath (it's been a while)...
strike F1....
Actually, forget that... it was silly of me to even think about
comparing context sensitive help capabilities in D7 and D2007. A
useless help system is still a useless help system, no matter how well
sorted your component palette.
;D
--
JS
TWorld.Create.Free;
Brion L. Webster
>And then there's the "I'm coding but I need to look up the help for
>property/method/events of component Y"... in D7, click the component in
>the palette (maybe ONE preceding click to select the tab first) strike
>F1.
>
>In D2007, switch to form design, wait for the palette to reconfigure,
>find the tab, find the component, or start typing the name - either
>complete in full or pick from options or maybe complete in full and
>STILL have to pick from options...... draw breath (it's been a while)...
>strike F1....
Well, to be fair, ever since they decided to suppress visual components
when you're on a non-visual host (i.e. a data module), the palette in
Delphi 6 and 7 has a fair bit of flicker to it too.
If you've got a regular TForm active, and a component palette bar with
both visual and non-visual controls active, switch to a data module.
Watch the palette bar. Things wiggle there pretty oddly. If I remember
correctly, depending on the version of Delphi and possibly service pack
level, there are bugs there too. Pretty sure that predates QC, though.
--
-Brion
There's no such thing as 'one, true way;'
- Mercedes Lackey
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
Delphi trying to catch up with Lazarus? I doubt it.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Why was I with her? She reminds me of you. In fact, she reminds
me more of you than you do!" -- Groucho Marx
Bob Dawson
>
> Well, to be fair, ever since they decided to suppress visual components
> when you're on a non-visual host (i.e. a data module), the palette in
> Delphi 6 and 7 has a fair bit of flicker to it too.
In D2007, going to the Palette properties and checking "Always
Show Designer Items" helps this a great deal.
bobD
Bob Dawson
>
> Wonders.... why did you never "organise" your palette so that all your
> components would fit on the 6-10 tabs that could easily fit even in a
> single line tab palette..... ?
I did move my most used tabs to the left--a technique that only works
reliably, incidentally, with a single line palette, not with a multiline
addin--but of course you can still only see the contents of one tab at a
time--if that. The new palette simply offers more, and more compactly.
> Well, 50% of that 1 /12 inches is sitting there wasted ALL of the time
> in D2007.... just look at all that stubbornly empty space in your app
I have two lines--the meu and the command bar. After that come the tops of
the task panes and edit window tabs. Any wasted space to the right is just a
matter of whether you want to display more or fewer menus--and that was no
different in D7.
> In D2007, switch to form design, wait for the palette to reconfigure,
Personally, I tend not to like context-sensitivity. You can considerably
help the situation by going to the Palette properties and checking "Always
Show Designer Items." That way your components remain visible even when
you're editing code. Again, what you're complaining about as a design fault
is simply a configurable option you don't seem to have set the way you want.
> have to pick from options...... draw breath (it's been a while)...
> strike F1....
And currently help for the component comes up for me--this is with the most
recent updates installed.
> useless help system is still a useless help system
I'm not going to defend help in an absolute sense--it still has a long way
to go. But unusable? nonsense. Let's acknowledge how much hard work has gone
into this--it's WAY better than it started, and if not back to the D7 level
yet, nevertheless advancing rapidly.
bobD
Mat Ballard
>>> Probably they'll try to catch up. <g>
>> I thought it was the other way around ;-)
>>
>> :P
>
> Delphi trying to catch up with Lazarus? I doubt it.
Win64 anyone ? Who's catching up with whom ?
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
Ok, so they have different versions for different targets. Good for
those who need it.
Language-, (component) library- and IDE-wise, they are still playing
catch-up, AFAICS.
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is
enemy action." -- Auric Goldfinger, in "Goldfinger" by
Ian L. Fleming (1908-1964)
Marc Weustink
borland.public.delphi.non-technical a message with id
news:475e...@newsgroups.borland.com :
> Graeme Geldenhuys schrieb:
>> Simply awesome!
>
> Not impressed too much...
>
>>
>> Fiddling with Delphi's Path settings suck!
>>
>
> Rebuilding Lazarus for WinCE sucks! (because the source to be
> compiled has syntax errors!)
You're running Lazarus on CE ? (otherwise there is no need to
recompile the IDE for CE)
Marc
Daniël Mantione
"Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]" <newsg...@rvelthuis.de> wrote:
>Mat Ballard wrote:
>
>> Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] wrote:
>>
>> > > > Probably they'll try to catch up. <g>
>> > > I thought it was the other way around ;-)
>> > >
>> > > :P
>> >
>> > Delphi trying to catch up with Lazarus? I doubt it.
>>
>> Win64 anyone ? Who's catching up with whom ?
>
>Ok, so they have different versions for different targets. Good for
>those who need it.
Hey, you got it :) Cloning Delphi is not the goal.
Doing things Delphi doesn't is the goal. For those who need it.
>Language-
Disagree.
> (component) library- and IDE-wise, they are still playing
> catch-up, AFAICS.
I'm sure the Lazarus team is comfortable with that.
Daniël Mantione
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
> > (component) library- and IDE-wise, they are still playing
> > catch-up, AFAICS.
>
> I'm sure the Lazarus team is comfortable with that.
Good for them. <g>
--
Rudy Velthuis [TeamB] http://www.teamb.com
"As the post said, 'Only God can make a tree,' probably because
it's so hard to figure out how to get the bark on."
-- Woody Allen.
Jolyon Smith
> If you've got a regular TForm active, and a component palette bar with
> both visual and non-visual controls active, switch to a data module.
> Watch the palette bar. Things wiggle there pretty oddly.
Um, my mileage clearly varies.
Things don't "wiggle oddly", prettily or otherwise. The (D7) palette
snaps from one config to another as fast as I can click from the
datamodule to the form.
<shrug>
Perhaps this was an issue in earlier GExperts which (if we're being
fair) was a destabilising influence on the IDE generally in it's early
days, but ime that has long since ceased to be the case.
--
JS
TWorld.Create.Free;
Brion L. Webster
What? An *improvement* in the Delphi 2007 palette over the hallowed
Delphi 7 palette? I call thee warlock, and demand trial by water! <g>
BTW - strong sarcasm in this note...
Jolyon Smith
> I did move my most used tabs to the left--a technique that only works
> reliably, incidentally, with a single line palette, not with a multiline
> addin
Fair nuff - my point was that if you insisted on a single-line tab
strip then you could arrange things to suit the fact that you couldn't
necessarily see all your tabs. Not strictly necessary with a multi-line
strip since all your tabs are instantly to hand.
And of course with GExperts a quick right-click and a nicely ordered
list of tabs was readily to hand.
> The new palette simply offers more, and more compactly.
That's just ridiculous - for sure you can compact the new palette down
smaller than the old, if you don't care about it being at all usable.
All of the suggested "just as usuable as the old palette" configurations
take up MORE space however.
As I posted in Nicks blog - it all comes down to how you measure
"improvement".
Set up an arbitrary list of functional characteristics to be implemented
and if you can tick more of those boxes in the new palette (more
functions, more choices etc etc) then you can claim "improvement".
Choose some useful, meaningful usability metrics however and it's a
whole different kettle of canned worms.
> I have two lines--the meu and the command bar. After that come the tops of
> the task panes and edit window tabs.
The task panes and edit windows aren't in the app bar area, they are
BELOW it.
I also just realised my previous schematic was incomplete (omitted the
menu bar) and should have been:
__________________________________________________
D7: |_<menus>_________________| <palette> |
| <tools | |
|_________________________|________________________|
__________________________________________________
D2007: |_<menus>_________________| <unusable> |
|_<tools>________|_________________________________|
(On a 16:9 monitor that unusable space - with default menus and tools -
accounts for 50% of the app bar real estate)
Even with the editor constrained in the area below the app bar only
about 1 line of code is sacrificed.
That sacrifice is pretty much forced on you in D2007 given it's docked
nature and the pain that comes from trying to use it undocked, which
isn't that surprising given that "docked" is D2007's "natural" state and
undocked is D7's.
To add insult to injury, even in UNdocked state, the ONE PLACE you
cannot manually re-dock the palette is the app bar (to be fair, of
course, in D7 this was the only place you COULD dock it - lol).
D7 of course, the editor maximises to fill the entire screen if needed,
so you can get that 1 line back very easily and as and when needed).
"Zoom to full screen" is just a waste of a checkbox in D2007 (unless
undocked (see above)).
In the meanwhilst of course I need to take into account that the tool
palette sits hogging something like 10% of my non-appbar area (docked).
To get anywhere near to a comparable old-palette configuration (all tab
names visible and selectable) requires an almost full screen height,
vertical palette - 20% of screen real estate.
Pinning and Fly-outs to the rescue?
You gotta be kidding.
Never mind the 1/2 second or more waiting for the palette to register
the need to fly out....
Never mind that stupid animation of the flying in/out ("flying"?
"stumbling" more like).
Never mind that if you "pin" a stumbled out palette it doesn't "pin"
where it is, but chooses a new set of dimensions to be pinned with.
Oh yes, so much more "improved".
Bah!
> Any wasted space to the right is just a
> matter of whether you want to display more or fewer menus--and that was no
> different in D7.
It was _very_ different in D7.
> Personally, I tend not to like context-sensitivity. You can considerably
> help the situation by going to the Palette properties and checking "Always
> Show Designer Items."
Yeah, that is SOOO helpful, jumbling up component palette tabs along
with tool palette tabs.
> That way your components remain visible even when
> you're editing code. Again, what you're complaining about as a design fault
> is simply a configurable option you don't seem to have set the way you want.
Because it isn't what I want. What I would want - in this specific case
- would be:
[X] Component Palette
[ ] Tool Palette
I can only have
[X] Component Palette
[X] Tool Palette
or
[ ] Component Palette
[ ] Tool Palette
Oh and "Auto-Expand Categories" too.
> And currently help for the component comes up for me--this is with the most
> recent updates installed.
I barely found the time to install D2007 - I don't have the time to
uninstall and reinstall it a further 2 times, especially given that it
sits unused mosed of the time since D7 is still far and away the more
productive of the two.
(and given some of the horror stories of people trying to install the
"updates" I can't say that I am full of regret at having missed out on
the experience)
What can I say?
First impressions matter, and D2007 came a cropper at that hurdle.
<shrug>
> I'm not going to defend help in an absolute sense--it still has a long way
> to go. But unusable? nonsense. Let's acknowledge how much hard work has gone
> into this
And after we're done rewarding belated and incomplete if not utterly
inadequate attempts to fix the results of neglect and dare-I-say
incompetence, maybe we can all go to the Middle East and sort that mess
out with A Big Group Hug.
(with thanks to "Will and Grace")
:)
> it's WAY better than it started, and if not back to the D7 level
> yet, nevertheless advancing rapidly.
If you don't mind, I'll wait until it has (at the very least) caught up
with that 5 years old version, and then once it's started actually
getting better I might even consider spending more of my time and money.
--
JS
TWorld.Create.Free;
Bob Dawson
>
> It was _very_ different in D7.
Yes--that does seem to be the bottom line. I think it's better, but then did
I spend some time playing with it to see what it did and why it was changed.
I didn't like it better in the first 5 minutes.
But then, if it were exactly like D7, then that would be an argument against
upgrading, too. So we have
--those who don't want to upgrade because Delphi has changed
--those who don't want to upgrade because Delphi hasn't changed
and
--those who don't want to upgrade because Delphi hasn't changed enough.
Tough crowd. <g>
bobD
Ian Boyd
If it's nowhere near as good as Delphi's BPL system then it must be pretty
terrible indeed.
Graeme Geldenhuys
> Rod wrote:
>
> Is it still the same pain to install a package in Lazarus ?
'Components|Open Package file' then click Install. 2 seconds later the
IDE reloads itself and all is done.
Yeah I see what you mean - it's very complicated! ;-)
Regards,
- Graeme -