Moderators: Hacker, petermad, Stefan2, white
I would wait for two years to get a similar program written in any language that supports configuration schemes and runs on Windows and Linux. Nevertheless I'm quite satisfied with what we already have now.Hacker wrote:So you'd want to wait for two years so that you get the same program in another language?
Hmm, I would not.I would wait for two years to get a similar program written in any language that supports configuration schemes
C(++) doesn't automatically mean "it works everywhere". It would certainly be easier to port, however, it might not be that easy. Anyways, the rewrite would probably cause more trouble than good. Let alone the increased difficulty in maintaining the program.and runs on Windows and Linux.
With configuration schemes (predefined, user-definable, exportable, importable, ...) you could switch everything back in one go: Just choose something like "TC Classic Scheme".Hacker wrote:contra - with any new installation there would be an added hassle for me (and probably other old-fashioned users, too) to change everything back to what we're used to.
I never said that it would be easy, especially not for someone who is new to C++, but after all Mr. Ghisler is surely an ambitious developer.Hacker wrote:C(++) doesn't automatically mean "it works everywhere". It would certainly be easier to port, however, it might not be that easy.
Of course a rewrite causes troubles but also offers new chances. I disagree regarding maintance. The many possibilities of C++ are tempting to produce a mess, but well-written C++ code is not hard to maintain.Hacker wrote:Anyways, the rewrite would probably cause more trouble than good. Let alone the increased difficulty in maintaining the program.
Well, yes. Now I don't have to switch anything, though.With configuration schemes (predefined, user-definable, exportable, importable, ...) you could switch everything back in one go: Just choose something like "TC Classic Scheme".
Well, TC Pocket is programmed in C(++) (don't know which), so it wouldn't be such a shock. I guess every programmer got in touch with C(++) at least once.I never said that it would be easy, especially not for someone who is new to C++, but after all Mr. Ghisler is surely an ambitious developer.
AFAIK they are the same language. C++ is just an enhanced version of C (mainly OOP-related), as the name itself suggests.BTW: I wonder why you put C and C++ on the same level. For me C is completely out of question! C is essentially only a small fraction of C++.
The only new chance I see might be increased portability, but having something programmed in C++ doesn't automatically mean you can compile it on any platform.Of course a rewrite causes troubles but also offers new chances. I disagree regarding maintance. The many possibilities of C++ are tempting to produce a mess, but well-written C++ code is not hard to maintain.
Sure, about the same way as a truck is just an enhanced version of a coach.Hacker wrote:AFAIK they are the same language. C++ is just an enhanced version of C (mainly OOP-related), as the name itself suggests.
C would be out of question, I agree.
1. Having the ability to support Linux would be tremendous advantage in many respects.Hacker wrote:The only new chance I see might be increased portability, but having something programmed in C++ doesn't automatically mean you can compile it on any platform.
Because as Delphi is object-oriented it would be pretty much unthinkable to redesign it in a non-OO way.why else is C out of question for you?
True, however, C++ alone doesn't guarantee that.1. Having the ability to support Linux would be tremendous advantage in many respects
What exactly do you mean?2. With Standard C++ a software is better prepared to cooperation with other software and is better supported by tools currently and in the foreseeable future.
And why is it unthinkable? Because OO is not "just an extension" to a procedural programming language. And in case of C++ OO is by far not the only extension to C. And now we are at beginning again where you put C and C++ on the same level just because they share the "C" in their names while I said that C is essentially only a small subset (fraction) of C++.Hacker wrote:Because as Delphi is object-oriented it would be pretty much unthinkable to redesign it in a non-OO way.
The supply for most kind of tools is probably smaller for Delphi than for C++. Example: UML round-trip engineering tools including source code generators.Hacker wrote:What exactly do you mean?2. With Standard C++ a software is better prepared to cooperation with other software and is better supported by tools currently and in the foreseeable future.
It was only an example. The point was not this particular kind of tool, but the availability of programming tools for a given language in general.SanskritFritz wrote:
I don't think Christian uses UML. Or source code generator...
I am not against them. But I first agree that they are not yet ripe, and the only use of them can only be at the beginning of a large project from scratch. And I sad this, because it not really suitable to adapt to existing projects, and TC is definitely an ongoing project.Why are you against UML notations and UML round-trip engineering tools?
Nope, they aren't. But if you are interested I can code some little AutoHotkey scripts that can do it with no problem. AHK hotkey scripts run in the background without consuming resources when idling so for me they are a must to correct little annoyances.Are these even available to assign to a key?
