Difference between revisions of "Textmode IDE development"
From Free Pascal wiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchm (Textmode IDE developement moved to Textmode IDE development: Spelling mistake fix.) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
A lot of problems and uglinesses lie in the TP/DOS legacy: | A lot of problems and uglinesses lie in the TP/DOS legacy: | ||
| − | + | * Coupled to that the fact that it uses Dos, rather than Sysutils for its filename operations. | |
| − | * Coupled to that the fact that it uses Dos, rather than Sysutils for its filename operations. Now that the compiler uses sysutils mostly, the Dos versions are the less tested ones. | + | ** Now that the compiler uses sysutils mostly, the Dos versions are the less tested ones. |
| − | * | + | ** the fact that shortstrings (or parts of them) are used for filenames. |
| − | * Some functionality is deprecated | + | * Even the shortstring handling is far from perfect, since the IDE clearly hasn't had the end-user testing for *nix targets that dos/win32 had. Grepping for fixfilename() might yield such problems (like e.g. bug #5614), where filenames are pretty printing, however effectively killing case sensitive filesystems. |
| + | |||
| + | * Some functionality is deprecated or not active or documented. Examples are browser and code folding (see comments of bug #6696 Some of the functionality mentioned in #11583 might also be "newer"). Note that this kind of functionality is often not finished, e.g. afaik there is no way to save folds. (make them persistent some how) | ||
More wild ideas: | More wild ideas: | ||
| − | * Since FV has reduced in meaning, maybe it can be modernised using the delphi model a bit (streaming and constructors/destructors). I know this is heresy, but a tpobj version could continue to exist. I also don't know if it is worthwhile at all (most notably exploiting the static nature) | + | * Since FV has reduced in meaning, maybe it can be modernised using the delphi model a bit (streaming and constructors/destructors). I know this is heresy, but a tpobj version could continue to exist. It is mainly for the IDE. I also don't know if it is worthwhile at all (most notably exploiting if FV exploits the static nature of objects...) |
Revision as of 08:56, 31 July 2008
While the obvious task for the textmode IDE is of course fixing several or some of the 80 bugs, some other stuff comes to mind as future projects. Nearly all have to do with the fact that the IDE effectively stopped evolving significantly since 1.0 times.
A lot of problems and uglinesses lie in the TP/DOS legacy:
- Coupled to that the fact that it uses Dos, rather than Sysutils for its filename operations.
- Now that the compiler uses sysutils mostly, the Dos versions are the less tested ones.
- the fact that shortstrings (or parts of them) are used for filenames.
- Even the shortstring handling is far from perfect, since the IDE clearly hasn't had the end-user testing for *nix targets that dos/win32 had. Grepping for fixfilename() might yield such problems (like e.g. bug #5614), where filenames are pretty printing, however effectively killing case sensitive filesystems.
- Some functionality is deprecated or not active or documented. Examples are browser and code folding (see comments of bug #6696 Some of the functionality mentioned in #11583 might also be "newer"). Note that this kind of functionality is often not finished, e.g. afaik there is no way to save folds. (make them persistent some how)
More wild ideas:
- Since FV has reduced in meaning, maybe it can be modernised using the delphi model a bit (streaming and constructors/destructors). I know this is heresy, but a tpobj version could continue to exist. It is mainly for the IDE. I also don't know if it is worthwhile at all (most notably exploiting if FV exploits the static nature of objects...)
