Board index » delphi » Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed

Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed

Hi all,

I'm seriously thinking about getting another Pascal compiler, but it
needs to be reasonably Borland compatible. A commercial product is not a
problem, so in essence my choices are:

Virtual Pascal
FreePascal
TMT Pascal
Gnu Pascal

I would appreciate any comments, either private or in this group, about
pros and cons of all of these compilers - the list above lists them in
my current (subjective) order of preference.

Thanks,

Robert
--
Robert AH Prins
prin...@willis.com

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

 

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


Robert AH Prins <prin...@williscorroon.com> wrote:

Quote
>I'm seriously thinking about getting another Pascal compiler, but it
>needs to be reasonably Borland compatible. A commercial product is not a
>problem, so in essence my choices are:

>Virtual Pascal
>FreePascal
>TMT Pascal
>Gnu Pascal

Stony Brook Pascal+ is another choice, as well as Delphi.  I've
tried both FPC and TMT and I had some problems with one of them
- I think it was FPC.  It seemed like it wasn't there yet.

Jud McCranie

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:49:41 GMT, Robert AH Prins

Quote
<prin...@williscorroon.com> wrote:
>Hi all,

>I'm seriously thinking about getting another Pascal compiler, but it
>needs to be reasonably Borland compatible. A commercial product is not a
>problem, so in essence my choices are:

>Virtual Pascal
>FreePascal
>TMT Pascal
>Gnu Pascal

>I would appreciate any comments, either private or in this group, about
>pros and cons of all of these compilers - the list above lists them in
>my current (subjective) order of preference.

>Thanks,

>Robert

I only have experience with FPC, under linux. I think it is great,
it's tp compatible, portable, 32 bits and fast.
If you encounter a bug or another problem chances are that it will be
fixed on a short term basis.
Downside.. All your BASM-code needs rewriting.

As Jud said Delphi is another possibility, I think Inprise has a 60
day-trial on it's web page now.

Good luck
Bas

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


On Mon, 20 Dec 1999 15:49:41, Robert AH Prins

Quote
<prin...@williscorroon.com> wrote:
> Hi all,

> I'm seriously thinking about getting another Pascal compiler, but it
> needs to be reasonably Borland compatible. A commercial product is not a
> problem, so in essence my choices are:

> Virtual Pascal
> FreePascal
> TMT Pascal
> Gnu Pascal

> I would appreciate any comments, either private or in this group, about
> pros and cons of all of these compilers - the list above lists them in
> my current (subjective) order of preference.

I'll cast my vote for Virtual Pascal.  It is a straightforward,
no-frills product that does nothing more or less than what it claims
to do: clone the Turbo language and environment on OS/2 and Win9x.

Plus sides :Excellent Turbo compatability, comes with built-in
Turbovision, produces excellent code, and a publisher who responds
with timely, correct answers to questions and comments.

Down sides : No Linux (or any other) version, not open source (and
generally hostile to open source), no overloading of anything, and a
publisher who responds to questions, comments and requests with rude,
condescending replies.

Bottom line: Free Pascal is the future, and is the way to go if you
can get the damned thing to work.  Give it a shot.  It is open source,
costs you nothing to try, and is independent of the market realities
of its publisher.

If it doesn't work (and it didn't for me), Virtual Pascal is there and
it is first rate.  Just be prepared to be told to read the manual if
you have any questions.

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


In article <d8ss5ss2rg4ik41f08eapv1vla12anm...@4ax.com>, Jud McCranie

Quote
<jud.mccra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Stony Brook Pascal+ is another choice, as well as Delphi.  I've
> tried both FPC and TMT and I had some problems with one of them
> - I think it was FPC.  It seemed like it wasn't there yet.

And

In article <05C6FUhLDNUU-pn2-3dsGJ60pCslZ@localhost>, William Sonna

Quote
<wso...@ibm.net> wrote:
> Bottom line: Free Pascal is the future, and is the way to go if you
> can get the damned thing to work.  Give it a shot.  It is open source,
> costs you nothing to try, and is independent of the market realities
> of its publisher.

> If it doesn't work (and it didn't for me), Virtual Pascal is there and

Please, people, if it doesn't work, say so! We can't help you (or fix
things) if you don't say it doesn't work for you and what errors you
get.

BTW Jud: you did that benchmark with FPC, so how did you do that if you
couldn't get it to work? You also ran it with TMT, so that one can't
have been it either.

Jonas

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


On Tue, 21 Dec 1999 07:08:25, Jonas Maebe

Quote
<Jonas.Ma...@rug.ac.SPAM.ME.NOT.be> wrote:
> In article <d8ss5ss2rg4ik41f08eapv1vla12anm...@4ax.com>, Jud McCranie
> <jud.mccra...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> > Stony Brook Pascal+ is another choice, as well as Delphi.  I've
> > tried both FPC and TMT and I had some problems with one of them
> > - I think it was FPC.  It seemed like it wasn't there yet.

> And

> In article <05C6FUhLDNUU-pn2-3dsGJ60pCslZ@localhost>, William Sonna
> <wso...@ibm.net> wrote:

> > Bottom line: Free Pascal is the future, and is the way to go if you
> > can get the damned thing to work.  Give it a shot.  It is open source,
> > costs you nothing to try, and is independent of the market realities
> > of its publisher.

> > If it doesn't work (and it didn't for me), Virtual Pascal is there and

> Please, people, if it doesn't work, say so! We can't help you (or fix
> things) if you don't say it doesn't work for you and what errors you
> get.

> BTW Jud: you did that benchmark with FPC, so how did you do that if you
> couldn't get it to work? You also ran it with TMT, so that one can't
> have been it either.

> Jonas

Why you are quoting me in your response to someone else?

The unvarnished truth is:

1.  Free Pascal bombs (as of September of this year) "hello world" on
OS/2.
2.  I don't have the time or disk space to help you fix it.

I reported the problem (doesn't find the system files on some OS/2
machines) in September.  Your OS/2 person responded that it was a
known problem but difficult (if not impossible) to fix because it
doesn't occur on all systems, and so the problem was hard to
replicate.  Workaround: put the system files in the same folder as the
source files. I'm not interested in doing that to my system, it would
tend to make updating the software a bit error-prone, but it does
nonetheless work.

I am sorry I wasn't able to be of more assistance in locating the bug.

I wish you all the luck in the world and I commend you and your team
for your efforts.

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


In article <83lj6i$26...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Robert AH Prins
<prin...@williscorroon.com> writes

Quote
>Hi all,

>I'm seriously thinking about getting another Pascal compiler, but it
>needs to be reasonably Borland compatible. A commercial product is not a
>problem, so in essence my choices are:

>Virtual Pascal
>FreePascal
>TMT Pascal
>Gnu Pascal

>I would appreciate any comments, either private or in this group, about
>pros and cons of all of these compilers - the list above lists them in
>my current (subjective) order of preference.

FreePascal: like the idea, had rather more trouble with it than I'd like
(some of it, no doubt, due to my ignorance).  However, it does
completely fail to compile every big TP app I try it with. YMMV.

Gnu Pascal.  Again, like the idea; but it seems fairly obvious from the
documentation (such as it is) that this is woefully incomplete.  I don't
know what is motivating the authors; but producing a world class product
(like the Gnu C compilers) is not it.
--
==========================================================================
David Mitchell             =====  A life spent making mistakes is not only
================================  more honourable but more useful than a
da...@edenroad.demon.co.uk =====  life spent doing nothing. - GBS
==========================================================================

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


Quote
Jonas Maebe <Jonas.Ma...@rug.ac.SPAM.ME.NOT.be> wrote:
>BTW Jud: you did that benchmark with FPC, so how did you do that if you
>couldn't get it to work?

It worked with all of the compilers I tested.  I posted the
results here about Nov 10.  FPC seems to have a way to go before
it is a viable product, but it is not even up to verion 1.0 yet.

Jud McCranie

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


Quote
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> Please, people, if it doesn't work, say so! We can't help you (or fix
> things) if you don't say it doesn't work for you and what errors you
> get.

Well, I'd like to know why version 0.99.12b for Win32 produces a 328 KB (!!)
.exe for the following 3 (!!) lines:

uses crt;
begin
end.

And without crt, it's still 60 KB.

I have tried the command line options -Xs, -XD, etc. Nothing worked.

I have had lots of problems configuring FPC and as you can see I have still
not grasped how it works. While the alternative Pascal compilers might be
more powerful than TP/BP they are considerably harder to configure.

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


ive used TMT pascal, well, at least the free stripped down version of it,
and it said that the program line of my program had to be of the same name
as the program itslef, ie, if the program was names myfirstprogram.pas, the
first line of my code would have had to be
program myfirstprogram;
tut, tut, tut!
lol
cya!

Robert AH Prins <prin...@williscorroon.com> wrote in message
news:83lj6i$26e$1@nnrp1.deja.com...

Quote
> Hi all,

> I'm seriously thinking about getting another Pascal compiler, but it
> needs to be reasonably Borland compatible. A commercial product is not a
> problem, so in essence my choices are:

> Virtual Pascal
> FreePascal
> TMT Pascal
> Gnu Pascal

> I would appreciate any comments, either private or in this group, about
> pros and cons of all of these compilers - the list above lists them in
> my current (subjective) order of preference.

> Thanks,

> Robert
> --
> Robert AH Prins
> prin...@willis.com

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


Quote
On Tue, 21 Dec 1999, David Mitchell wrote:
> FreePascal: like the idea, had rather more trouble with it than I'd like
> (some of it, no doubt, due to my ignorance).  However, it does
> completely fail to compile every big TP app I try it with. YMMV.

Also using the -So command line option? (this enables TP compatibility
mode). If so, what were the problems you encountered? Of course, 16bit
specific programs won't work.

Jonas

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


In article <o97v5s4757jq5r9nf3li04q9a266ldg...@4ax.com>, Jud McCranie

Quote
<jud.mccra...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> It worked with all of the compilers I tested.  I posted the
> results here about Nov 10. FPC seems to have a way to go before
> it is a viable product, but it is not even up to verion 1.0 yet.

But what are the problems you got setting it up or using it? What
didn't work or seemed incomplete making you say the above?

Jonas

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


In article <385FBAA3.64A9E...@mail.dotcom.fr>, Frederic Bonroy

Quote
<fbon...@mail.dotcom.fr> wrote:

 Well, I'd like to know why version 0.99.12b for Win32 produces a 328
KB (!!)

Quote
> .exe for the following 3 (!!) lines:

> uses crt;
> begin
> end.

> And without crt, it's still 60 KB.

That is because the Windows and crt unit require a huge number of
imported functions.

Quote
> I have tried the command line options -Xs, -XD, etc. Nothing worked.

That is because the 0.99.12b distribution didn't include a shared
library version or a smartlinkable version of the Win32 rtl. The reason
is that the binary writer for Win32 was still buggy and it took ages to
compile a smartlinkable RTL for win32 that way. I think the shared
library version was left out because hardly anyone uses that (since if
you want to distribute a program, you'd have to think to include the
library, which is about as annoying as those vbrunxxx.dll's)

The current snapshots are very capable of creating a smartlinkable RTL
(it's not included because it would increase the size of the download
quite a bit). To create a smartlinkable RTL (replace c:\pp with the dir
where you installed FPC),

a) get a win32 snapshot from the development section of the website and
place the included (compiler\)ppc386.exe in your bin\win32 dir. Add
"-Fuc:\pp\rtl\win32" to you ppc386.cfg if it isn't in there yet.
b) get the current RTL sources from the development section as well and
unzip them in your c:\pp dir (the sources will be placed under the RTL\
directory)
c) get also the file base.zip and put its contents in c:\pp (NOT in
c:\pp\base!)
d) go into the rtl\win32 dir and type

make clean

and then

1) for a smartlinkable rtL

make staticlib

(use the -XX command line option afterwards for the compiler so it uses
the smartlinkable RTL, this option has changed names since 0.99.12b)

2) for a shared library rtl:

make sharedlib

(and use -XD to use it, this one stayed the same)

Quote
> I have had lots of problems configuring FPC and as you can see I have still
> not grasped how it works. While the alternative Pascal compilers might be
> more powerful than TP/BP they are considerably harder to configure.

It depends. If you want to fine tune it (like using a smartlinkable or
a shared library RTL, installing a snapshot or compiling the
RTL/compiler yourself), yes. But for "normal" use, I think the default
configuration is quite good. The problem may be that we don't do enough
"official" releases though, which is annoying for people not wanting to
bother with snapshots and the like (although they're quite easy to use
actually).

Jonas

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


Quote
Jonas Maebe <Jonas.Ma...@rug.ac.SPAM.ME.NOT.be> wrote:
>But what are the problems you got setting it up or using it? What
>didn't work or seemed incomplete making you say the above?

I don't remember exactly.  I got it to compile.  It executed,
but slowly compared to the other 32-bit Pascal compilers I
tested.  It seemed very rough around the edges.  I don't
remember specifics.
Jud McCranie

Re:Replacement for BP7 - pros & cons needed


Quote
Jonas Maebe wrote:
> The problem may be that we don't do enough
> "official" releases though, which is annoying for people not wanting to
> bother with snapshots and the like (although they're quite easy to use
> actually).

Exactly. I find the snapshot policy to be extremely annoying. I am really looking
forward to "official" releases where everything can easily be configured (from
the IDE for example, as it is the case with Borland Pascal). I like the command
line and DOS commands, but not to such an extent as to configure a compiler from
it...
Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Other Threads