On 21 Nov 2002 at 20:42, adem wrote:

>Plus, I can see your efforts on fb which I apreciate a lot. So my
>perspective on the issue was after C++ conversion.

Don't mix up me and Dmitry Yemanov. I didn't do anything noticeable
for FB yet. Just buzz, complains and unfounded suggestions.

>Thirdly, why do you say FPK is not a very good compiler yet?

Bugs. I have some fixed in my work copy, but not in main CVS tree.
Crashes. Some of my programs tend to perform illegal ops after
conversion into FP.

>Again, instead of looking at it from short-sharp-answers geek angle,
>dont you think there an element of thruth in what I said?

Of course, there is an element. But so far I don't see any way for
Pascal to became SP language, not to mention FPC to became SP
compiler.

>> >-- We would not need UDFs that need to be compiled for every new
>> >platform, FB could compile them by itsef.
>
>Of course you are a much better programmer than most, with more time
>than most too; so you can port all your UDFs to whatever platform you
>need to.

You underestimate my laziness. I don't use UDFs at all. And even if
I urgently needed to use one, I would find UDF library by Claudio V.
or any other complete (and tested) library.

> Yet there is the mortals among us who would like this to be
>as transparent as possible. Is it too much to consider?

AFAIK C is very portable and gcc exists everywhere.

>Improving the DBMS engine should not be mutually exclusive. The reason
>why I put Pascal forward was because FB was very Delphi (Kylix)
>friendly. And, that it might be a good idea to get them closer still.

It is a common mistake. IB never was Delphi friendly. They have
different roots and working with IB from Delphi is not less tricky
than with Oracle or MySQL. They just were supplied together because
B. owns them both.

SY, Dimitry Sibiryakov.