Next Generation Emulation banner

Would you join Dxbx development if we supported FPC/Lazarus?

  • Yes, definitely!

    Votes: 5 55.6%
  • Maybe (post your remarks)

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • No thanks. Don't waste your time on that, please.

    Votes: 2 22.2%
  • No, but I would still like to compile with FPC

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I don't care, really.

    Votes: 1 11.1%

  • Total voters
    9
  • Poll closed .
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Just a quick poll to see where we should take this :

Should we support FPC/Lazarus*, so that Dxbx is not tied to the (commercial) Delphi compiler?

You'll understand that our main reason to do this would be to attract more developers.
Comments are welcome.


* FPC is an open-source pascal compiler, Lazarus is the accompanying IDE.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
IMHO Delphi is already a dying language, so tying the project to a compiler with uncertain future would be a bad idea. With Lazarus you don't even get multiple platforms and 64 bit support, it will also be available should Delphi's new owner Embarcadero Technologies once go bankrupt or drop Delphi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
IMHO Delphi is already a dying language, so tying the project to a compiler with uncertain future would be a bad idea. With Lazarus you don't even get multiple platforms and 64 bit support, it will also be available should Delphi's new owner Embarcadero Technologies once go bankrupt or drop Delphi.
Regardless what the future of Delphi might bring (I don't share your view/worry, but let's not go there), the Delphi compiler I have installed right now will keep working for years to come.
But a port to FPC/Lazarus shouldn't be too hard; most code is pure pascal, so that should compile with only minimal changes (if any). Only the forms will need some work, as those are tied to the VCL right now. Updating the code to a Model-View-Controller design could help there.

One thing that FPC won't bring is cross-platform compatibility;

Even though the Free Pascal Compiler supports multiple target platforms, the current codebase uses many win32 kernel API's and Direct3D. (The only thing I can think of, is using Wine libs for other platforms than Windows. But that is a major feat!) That, and the fact that High Level Emulation depends on running emulated code right on the native CPU, still restricts a FPC-port of Dxbx to wintel machines. Only Low-Level Emulation could change that I'm afraid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
423 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I promised to wait a bit before reaching any conclusion.
Meanwhile, the poll is closed, so let's see what feedback we got :

In total, we got nine votes, no less ;-) But still, thanks!
To be honest, two of those votes where from shadow_tj and me (if you wonder : we both voted 'No thanks' ;) )

As I hinted at already, I personlly don't think Dxbx development would benefit much (feature-wise) because of a port.

But still, five people indicated they would join Dxbx the development team if we made our code base PFC-compatible.
So my question for you lot is : is anyone of you interested to start this port to FPC independently?

As you can see from our SVN, we've picked up the pace a bit and are committing about 15 times a week now. We're still working in one branch (although I must admit that I use multiple local copies, so I can work in parallel on separate tasks), but I think when a real port starts taking shape, a it would be wise to do that in a separate branch. Now, if anyone steps forwards, please let us know if you would like to work with SVN or Git - in the latter case I'll have to update that repository, as I still haven't used Git much (even though I consider Git a superior tool over SVN).


I hope to hear from you soon - please don't hesitate to contact us! Xbox1 emulation is a very interesting and challenging hobby, and the more people contributing, the better!


Regards,
PatrickvL
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top