Board index » delphi » migration path

migration path

I have  some old (and some still current) BP7 code that is being and
will be migrated to other OS', and I have some new work to be done in
some of other these OS'.  I need a suitable migration path.  I try not
to use too many Borland specific extensions, but of course have used
some (wouldn't want to live w/o objects for instance).  I don't mind
writing some routines to replace some extensions: e.g. BlockRead, and I
don't mind coding some fixups on small differences.  I prefer not to
re-write and I prefer not to move to another language (C/C++/Java, don't
suggest it, please).  In addition I prefer not to revert to debuging via
low level de{*word*81}s and writeln statements, I've come to rely on
windowed, stepping de{*word*81}s. I know some of the answers to this
question, what I need are the missing bits.  I need to do some work in
Win95, NT and Unix (I have just setup a Linux station to do my work).  I
know and, already have, Delphi for Win95 and NT, but am not finding much
luck with a complete and ready to use solution for Unix.  I know there
are a few things out there: GPC, and FPK, but neither seems to offer a
de{*word*81} and both admit to being not quite ready for prime time.  Does
anyone know of anything?  Even OS/2 has options (SpeedPascal/Sibyl).
Has not the fertile Linux environment come up with something?  FWIW, if
I must re code I would prefer to move to something like Modula2/3 or
Oberon, but again it must support Dos, Win95, NT and Unix and be
complete in the aspects I have mentioned.  Any chance of my finding
happiness?

Many thanks,

Warwick Hiscock

 

Re:migration path


In <345B7161.4...@ibm.net>,

Quote
W.K.Hiscock <whis...@ibm.net> wrote:
> I have  some old (and some still current) BP7 code that is being and
> will be migrated to other OS', and I have some new work to be done in
> some of other these OS'.  I need a suitable migration path.

GPC is certainly the most portable Pascal compiler. Though you seem to have
tried it already, I will say a few words about it. (I'm not referring to the
last official version 2.0 which was lacking some important things, but about
the current beta version -- a new official version is planned to be released
soon.)

Quote
> I try not
> to use too many Borland specific extensions, but of course have used
> some (wouldn't want to live w/o objects for instance).  I don't mind
> writing some routines to replace some extensions: e.g. BlockRead, and I
> don't mind coding some fixups on small differences.

The current version of GPC supports objects like BP, and many other BP
extensions. BlockRead is not yet implemented, but will be one the next
things to be done, and as you know, is easy enough to replace.

Quote
> I prefer not to
> re-write and I prefer not to move to another language (C/C++/Java, don't
> suggest it, please).

Certainly not! :-)

Quote
> In addition I prefer not to revert to debuging via
> low level de{*word*81}s and writeln statements, I've come to rely on
> windowed, stepping de{*word*81}s.

There is RHIDE, an IDE with integrated de{*word*81} (quite similar to the BP IDE).
Currently, there are a few problems left (e.g. when evaluating/modifying
variables, you have to use C syntax), but I hope they will be solved not too
far in the future. RHIDE runs at least under Dos and Linux, I don't know if
also (already) under other systems.

Quote
> I know some of the answers to this
> question, what I need are the missing bits.  I need to do some work in
> Win95, NT and Unix (I have just setup a Linux station to do my work).  I
> know and, already have, Delphi for Win95 and NT, but am not finding much
> luck with a complete and ready to use solution for Unix.  I know there
> are a few things out there: GPC, and FPK, but neither seems to offer a
> de{*word*81} and both admit to being not quite ready for prime time.

Admitting it, and really not being ready are, of course, not always the same
thing...

Anyway, I personally prefer a compiler (and OS) that's free and actively
developed, though there might be a few bugs, because I have better chances
not only to get the bugs fixed, but also to get new features that I want.
Sometimes, I can even do these things to the compiler myself. With
proprietary and/or obsolete software, I don't have these chances. That's my
experience with GPC vs. BP, and with Linux vs. Dos.

Quote
> Does
> anyone know of anything?  Even OS/2 has options (SpeedPascal/Sibyl).
> Has not the fertile Linux environment come up with something?

GPC and FPK run under Linux, so it probably wouldn't be a good idea to start
yet another (Linux specific) Pascal compiler...

--
Frank Heckenbach, Erlangen, Germany
fjf@[NOSPAM.REMOVE.THIS]gmx.de
Internet links:        http://home.pages.de/~fjf/links.htm
Turbo Pascal programs: http://home.pages.de/~fjf/programs.htm

Other Threads