Fantastic opportunity for Lazarus/FPC ! lazarus / 8-Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------- siegfriedn · 2013-02-08 10:16 In a nutshell. Promote Lazarus/FPC as a major Ubuntu/Unity development tool. (i.e. native apps for both Desktop and Phone.) This article made me think about it. (German) http://www.heise.de/open/meldung/Ubuntu-Telefone-fuer-Oktober- angekuendigt-1799524.html Basically you can develop apps for Ubuntu for Phone in Qt C++, QML or HTML5. I can clearly see that Free Pascal can also be an option. Especially if you do not want to develop in C++! I really think Ubuntu with their universal user interface Unity has a serious potential as a global leader ! Think about the Windows 8 disaster.. Unity looks very strong now. Lazarus/FPC should stand up (rise!) as a major development platform for the Unity platform.. (Sorry, I am preaching to the converted! ) Now, what Lazarus really needs is an MVC like framework to target multiple targets from the same codebase... Just LCL is not good enough. Siegfried ---------------------------------------------------------------------- valdir.marcos · 2014-12-31 18:00 Maybe, this topic can start helping: http://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php?topic=26928.msg166187#ms g166187 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- taazz · 2014-12-31 18:30 Quote from: siegfriedn on February 08, 2013, 11:16:50 amNow, what Lazarus really needs is an MVC like framework to target multiple targets from the same codebase... Just LCL is not good enough. Why? What is missing from lcl? What do you expect to see? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2014-12-31 18:48 Quote from: siegfriedn on February 08, 2013, 11:16:50 am I really think Ubuntu with their universal user interface Unity has a serious potential as a global leader ! Think about the Windows 8 disaster.. Unity looks very strong now. Lazarus/FPC should stand up (rise!) as a major development platform for the Unity platform.. (Sorry, I am preaching to the converted! ) This is not a Linux (let alone Ubuntu) forum, so I wouldn't bet on that. QuoteNow, what Lazarus really needs is an MVC like framework to target multiple targets from the same codebase I myself always found MVC a very artificial construct. It appeals to the purists though. Like many design patterns, it is IMHO more suitable to describe an extreme (full MVC separation), than something you desire in every application. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- taazz · 2014-12-31 19:43 Quote from: marcov on December 31, 2014, 07:48:08 pmLike many design patterns, it is IMHO more suitable to describe an extreme (full MVC separation), than something you desire in every application. Just out of curiosity which patterns you find helpful for day to day use? I find my self using the subject/observer pattern a lot lately and I was wandering if there are any other patterns that could have heavy use outside the purist environment. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2014-12-31 20:40 Quote from: taazz on December 31, 2014, 08:43:29 pmQuote from: marcov on December 31, 2014, 07:48:08 pmLike many design patterns, it is IMHO more suitable to describe an extreme (full MVC separation), than something you desire in every application. Just out of curiosity which patterns you find helpful for day to day use? I find my self using the subject/observer pattern a lot lately and I was wandering if there are any other patterns that could have heavy use outside the purist environment. If you are into patterns, the absolutely, absolutely, absolutely best thing ever is to read the foreword/introduction of the original GOF book. The core point to be gotten from that introduction is that the core objective of design patterns is to standardize terminology about best practices, iow talking about patterns, and the ability to pick up pattern books to get ideas. They also warn against to slavishly following patterns. That nugget in the foreword of the original design patterns book IMHO says it all, and should be the mantra to live by and survive in a pattern crazy world. However sometimes design patterns seem to have devolved into a silly match to use as many patterns as possible (to demonstrate that you are modern), and to uncompromisingly follow patterns. So when in doubt, THINK, and reread that foreword by GOF, the grandfathers of patterns :-) If I look my code, I mainly recognize command interpreter patterns, and also observer-observable. Those are very, very common though, and are much older than design patterns. Design patterns just gave them a name. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- taazz · 2014-12-31 21:02 Quote from: marcov on December 31, 2014, 09:40:34 pmQuote from: taazz on December 31, 2014, 08:43:29 pmQuote from: marcov on December 31, 2014, 07:48:08 pmLike many design patterns, it is IMHO more suitable to describe an extreme (full MVC separation), than something you desire in every application. Just out of curiosity which patterns you find helpful for day to day use? I find my self using the subject/observer pattern a lot lately and I was wandering if there are any other patterns that could have heavy use outside the purist environment. If you are into patterns, the absolutely, absolutely, absolutely best thing ever is to read the foreword/introduction of the original GOF book. The core point to be gotten from that introduction is that the core objective of design patterns is to standardize terminology about best practices, iow talking about patterns, and the ability to pick up pattern books to get ideas. They also warn against to slavishly following patterns. That nugget in the foreword of the original design patterns book IMHO says it all, and should be the mantra to live by and survive in a pattern crazy world. However sometimes design patterns seem to have devolved into a silly match to use as many patterns as possible (to demonstrate that you are modern), and to uncompromisingly follow patterns. So when in doubt, THINK, and reread that foreword by GOF, the grandfathers of patterns :-) If I look my code, I mainly recognize command interpreter patterns, and also observer-observable. Those are very, very common though, and are much older than design patterns. Design patterns just gave them a name. So you redesign everything from 0 for every little thing and overall you do not have anything repeating enough times to create a pattern or I read to much in your statement? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2014-12-31 21:26 Quote from: taazz on December 31, 2014, 10:02:28 pm So you redesign everything from 0 for every little thing and overall you do not have anything repeating enough times to create a pattern or I read to much in your statement? You seem to confuse patterns with frameworks. A pattern is something different from a framework. A pattern is a common abstract pattern (literally!) in differing implementations. A framework is the intended common denominator in a series of applications. So a pattern is NOT code but an idea, and a framework IS code. I use an own framework, but that is partially because in my current job as a programmer for a machine (production line) builder, the requirements are typically not matched by prepackaged software. The current framework more or less grew organically from parametrization of the original application, which is currently almost ten years old and in its 3rd or 4th major iteration. But I'm not above using frameworks, in the past I delivered VCL, WebHub (a Delphi webframework) and ASP.NET apps. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- taazz · 2014-12-31 22:42 Quote from: marcov on December 31, 2014, 10:26:50 pmQuote from: taazz on December 31, 2014, 10:02:28 pm So you redesign everything from 0 for every little thing and overall you do not have anything repeating enough times to create a pattern or I read to much in your statement? You seem to confuse patterns with frameworks. A pattern is something different from a framework. A pattern is a common abstract pattern (literally!) in differing implementations. A framework is the intended common denominator in a series of applications. So a pattern is NOT code but an idea, and a framework IS code. Did I say recode somewhere and I'm not seeing it? Quote from: marcov on December 31, 2014, 10:26:50 pmI use an own framework, but that is partially because in my current job as a programmer for a machine (production line) builder, the requirements are typically not matched by prepackaged software. The current framework more or less grew organically from parametrization of the original application, which is currently almost ten years old and in its 3rd or 4th major iteration. But I'm not above using frameworks, in the past I delivered VCL, WebHub (a Delphi webframework) and ASP.NET apps. I did not disaggred with your point of view that patterns although a good idea must be applied to each application and recognized as its developed. Frameworks use patterns (just for information an event is a pattern small but a pattern) if you are all for frameworks then you are using some patterns all over the framework. In any case I asked if you are aware of any day to day patterns you use, I guess the answer is no, not if you use any well known/documented patterns in your day to day development. Just to make my self a bit more clear I consider the multi event mechanism used in lcl application object a form of subject/observer pattern where multiple observers can be informed about a specific action in the application. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- marcov · 2014-12-31 23:58 Quote from: taazz on December 31, 2014, 11:42:20 pmQuote from: marcov on December 31, 2014, 10:26:50 pmQuote from: taazz on December 31, 2014, 10:02:28 pm So you redesign everything from 0 for every little thing and overall you do not have anything repeating enough times to create a pattern or I read to much in your statement? You seem to confuse patterns with frameworks. A pattern is something different from a framework. A pattern is a common abstract pattern (literally!) in differing implementations. A framework is the intended common denominator in a series of applications. So a pattern is NOT code but an idea, and a framework IS code. Did I say recode somewhere and I'm not seeing it? Well, I had to guess what you meant with that remark "from 0". Quote from: taazz on December 31, 2014, 11:42:20 pm I did not disaggred with your point of view that patterns although a good idea must be applied to each application and recognized as its developed. Frameworks use patterns (just for information an event is a pattern small but a pattern) if you are all for frameworks then you are using some patterns all over the framework. In any case I asked if you are aware of any day to day patterns you use, I guess the answer is no, not if you use any well known/documented patterns in your day to day development. And I named two, observer/observable (which is a bit a registrable multicast) and command interpreter. Probably more, but can't it is already a few years back that I read the most important pattern books. Can't name the more rare ones immediately. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- taazz · 2015-01-01 04:53 Quote from: marcov on January 01, 2015, 12:58:29 amAnd I named two, observer/observable (which is a bit a registrable multicast) and command interpreter. Probably more, but can't it is already a few years back that I read the most important pattern books. Can't name the more rare ones immediately. And I missed the reference for some reason, thank you for pointing it out twice. Happy holidays and a Happy new year to every one. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Leledumbo · 2015-01-01 05:25 Quote from: siegfriedn on February 08, 2013, 11:16:50 amI really think Ubuntu with their universal user interface Unity has a serious potential as a global leader ! Think about the Windows 8 disaster.. Unity looks very strong now. Lazarus/FPC should stand up (rise!) as a major development platform for the Unity platform.. (Sorry, I am preaching to the converted! ) Pffft! Sorry, as a Linux user, I think Unity sucks. It's too OS X-ish, not backward compatible and more often cause problem for existing apps. Moreover, if you lock Lazarus to Unity, you're killing Lazarus itself. Linux has a much wider community in the DE/WM sense. KDE & Gnome (including MATE and Cinnamon) community is much bigger than Unity, even more if you count smaller ones like XFCE (which is getting bigger, too), LXDE, LXQt, Enlightenment, EDE, Trinity or even the new ones like Pantheon, Deepin, Budgie. Creating a Unity-LCL backend is another story, but it won't be sufficient since LCL is the lowest common denominator, and will lack many Unity specific things. Quote from: siegfriedn on February 08, 2013, 11:16:50 amNow, what Lazarus really needs is an MVC like framework to target multiple targets from the same codebase... Just LCL is not good enough. Forcing pattern is not good as well, it should be left out to users. If I would need to call: Code: [Select]FormBuilder := TFormBuilder.GetFormBuilder; FormBuilder.SetCaption('The form caption'); FormBuilder.SetBounds(0,0,1920,1080); FormBuilder.SetVisible(true); NewForm := FormBuilder.GetResult; Form1.Accept(TFormFiller.Create(NewForm)); to clear Form1 content, I think I won't use LCL anymore.