Comment by badsectoracula | Hacker News Reader

Comment by badsectoracula | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Much of the 90s experience lives on in FPC/Lazarus, but it did not get much better after that, and few use it. I wish they aligned themselves with a more popular language like Rust or Go for a more cohesive experience

A very core aspect of LCL and how Lazarus works (and VCL/Delphi for that matter) is language features like metaclasses, RTTI, properties, etc which allow the framework to register classes, instantiate them at runtime and inspect the class definitions so that serialization/deserialization and IDE features like the object inspector will work. AFAIK neither Go nor Rust have this.

The only language off the top of my head that has it is C# (which isn't surprising considering both Delphi's dialect of Object Pascal and C# were designed by the same person).

Of course there can be language extensions like C++ Builder did for C++ but they'd need to maintain their own compiler (or fork).

Personally i get the impression that Visual Basic and Delphi's language features were added in tandem with the underlying framework (if not deciding first how the framework and IDE features will look like and then deciding on the language features to support those) whereas modern UI stuff are made with whatever the target language has in place.

> Of course there can be language extensions like C++ Builder did for C++ but they'd need to maintain their own compiler (or fork).

This is exactly what I hope would happen, except this time with Rust or Go. They don't need to integrate fully. I am not hoping for the ability to write Go/Rust for GUI code, just to be able to call into them without the clunky foreign functions.

I leave out Pascal now because besides the GUI part, the value isn't there anymore. The language is archaic otherwise.

> Personally i get the impression that Visual Basic and Delphi's language features were added in tandem with the underlying framework (if not deciding first how the framework and IDE features will look like and then deciding on the language features to support those) whereas modern UI stuff are made with whatever the target language has in place.

I agree. But the features stabilized, more or less. IDE experiences have not gotten better in a long while. It's not much of a moving target.

> language features like metaclasses, RTTI, properties, etc which allow the framework to register classes, instantiate them at runtime and inspect the class definitions so that serialization/deserialization and IDE features like the object inspector will work. AFAIK neither Go nor Rust have this.¶ The only language off the top of my head that has it is C#

Smalltalk and Objective-C?

They're not "static enough" to have automatic serialization/deserialization and object inspector-like functionality. AFAIK in OpenStep/GNUstep/Cocoa objects (derived from NSObject) are expected to implement encodeWithCoder and initWithCoder to save/load to an object to disk and relies on per-class versioning and the subclasses handling the versions manually. The default NSObject implementation does not do anything as it doesn't have enough information to do anything "automatically". For an IDE you could have objects implementing a protocol that enumerates properties (or just creates the GUI for editing an object) but this isn't something that can be done by what the language provides itself.

In Smalltalk you might be able to inspect objects and their values. The VM certainly has enough information for that - after all it needs to so it can read/write the image the objects are in - but i don't know how much of that is exposed (i've only played around with a few Smalltalks and never made any real application with them). Though even if that functionality is available, you'd still need some way to tell -say- a Delphi-like object inspector what properties are available and what values they are meant to be (so, e.g., a "backgroundColor" property is presented in the GUI with a color editor and not a string editor or whatever else :-P).

In contrast, Free Pascal (and Delphi) has enough functionality to implement serialization/deserialization for objects without the objects themselves having to have any custom logic (this is how components are saved - you simply declare a published property and the framework handles serialization and the IDE handles showing it in the object inspector with the appropriate editor based on its type). In addition the on-disk format can be implemented in a way as to allow only storing properties which have different values from the defaults (there is a language keyword to specify what the default is though there are also other means), meaning that any new property can be added. The default object writers work like that but as this information can be exposed to any program, you can do your own (the default formats and functionality mostly support whatever is needed for saving GUI forms but in my own game engine i need more functionality than that to handle binary data and external data assets so i wrote my own serialization system).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com