On Wed, Feb 06, 2008 at 11:37:41PM +0100, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote:
> On Feb 6, 2008 10:45 PM, Marco van de Voort <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There already is FPC on mobile devices.
> >
> > For the rest, the FAQ mostly applies:
> > http://www.hu.freepascal.org/faq.var#dotnet
>
> I think this is a little bit too intransigent. Many mobiles run only
> Java, so there is no other path to support them.
Nobody says there _should_ be a path then.
> My experience with Symbian makes me think I should have instead
> started a Java port. The Symbian is such a mess that a Java port would
> maybe be easier to do and achieve support for a hugely superior number
> of devices.
>
> There is even a Java assembler out there. I'm not 100% convinced that
> it can't be abstracted just like if it was just another platform.
The question is not if you can't shoehorn FPC into something it wasn't
designed for, but if the result is more than an academic exercise.
IOW, is a FPC that has parts of the language removed, where datatypes change
meaning, possible extensions that don't work on native etc still a FPC as we
know today ?
The Delphi.NET experiment of Borland shows this perfectly. Superficially
everything is ok, but practically you see each after the other halt the
shared codebases and do a "proper" new framework based on .NET classes and
types.
In Borlands case, the shared source between classic and .NET was mostly
temporary, for transition purposes, but how do you see this for FPC?
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
