kevin at suberic.net
Wed Aug 9 17:52:50 IST 2000
On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 04:52:24PM +0100, Niall O Broin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2000 at 12:37:54PM +0100, Frank Peelo wrote:
> > Can't you compile them in FPC (FreePascal) or GPC (GNU Pascal)? According to
> > the comp.lang.pascal.borland mini-FAQ
> > http://www.pedt.demon.co.uk/clpb/index.htm but I'm sure there's a newer
> > version somewhere) these should be mostly tp compatible... apart from
> Practically any non-trivial Turbo Pascal program (and I'm sure Kevin never
> wrote a trivial program in his life :-) ) made use of some Turbo's
oh lots. i get paid for it actually...
> extensions to standard Pascal - I wonder do FPC or GPC support those ? And
nope. hence my love of x and desperate desire to beat the morons that
want something to replace x. namely most apps used graph.bin - which
gave me access to the lovely cga graphics card. oh yeah...
so all the graphics stuff needs to be rewritten (blech).
however if i had written it to use xlib in 1989 would it work today? yes.
do my x apps work that i wrote in uni? they would if i'd saved them.
btw someone managed to add anti-aliased fonts to x. amazing. hm...
which to do... write an entire graphics subsystem from drivers (for
oodles of archs) to api to supporting applications *OR* fix the font
subsystem of x. oh gee, tough call. does anyone else see a similarity
between this question and, "should i get to work by flying west 33,000
miles or walking east two miles?"
> it wasn't just DOS specific stuff - I wrote and Irish payroll in a past life
> in cross-platform (DOS and MP/M - a multi-user version of CP/M) TP but I
> still used TP specific language features. Anyway, I don't suppose Kevin
> wants to dig up those skeletons - I know I don't (though I still have the
> source somewhere in the attic on 5 1/4" floppies, and worse yet, I can still
> read 5 1/4" floppies :-) )
they're all in my ~/src/pascal . and last i checked - two years ago -
no, no pascal compilers compile them. and some do use dos/bios functions
because dos was never really an actual os bar supplying an fs (and since
people like tannenbaum seem keen to foist that into userspace even that
bit of os work is suspect). i remember chiwahwah-like dos weenies used
to champion the minimalistic nature of dos (compared to the hardware
abstracting unix and "ew!" gui mac). and now windows contains a web
browser. and nt has the hal. i wish they'd make up their minds.
rant, rant, rant, that's all he does.
kevin at suberic.net life is just too cryptic. too bad it doesn't have
fork()'ed on 37058400 the simple interface of unix and tcsh. --me
meatspace place: work http://suberic.net/~kevin/ yank? www.votenader.com
>>protect privacy: www.gnupg.org or www.pgp.com. encrypted mail preferred<<
More information about the ILUG