Recent

Author Topic: Ideas / MOVED FROM: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10  (Read 4622 times)

alaa123456789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Try your Best to learn & help others
    • youtube:
hi,
i have some suggestions:
1- improve the ide , docking
2- improve the ui (modern design ) for all components
3- reduce the exe file directly when deploy no need for stip exe
4- add more components to online package manager
5-find easier way to add new components with rebuild the ide again .

thanks

ASerge

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2020, 08:19:39 pm »
i have some suggestions:
Excellent. Do it.

wp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12579
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2020, 08:29:24 pm »
4- add more components to online package manager
Are the 179 packages in online package manager not enough?

Handoko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • My goal: build my own game engine using Lazarus
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2020, 08:58:24 pm »
i have some suggestions:

1- improve the ide , docking

Lazarus already has 2 docking managers:
https://wiki.freepascal.org/Docking

If you found anything not working correctly, please submit the issue to the bugtracker:
http://bugs.freepascal.org/set_project.php?project_id=6

But please don't make docking the default. For most beginners docking may be good but for some users (like me), who often switch between programs really need to 'peek' the things behind the IDE's windows.

2- improve the ui (modern design ) for all components


Did you meant the appearance? You cannot simply improve the appearance of widgetsets because many of them have the appearance determined by the OS.

But there were many discussions about modern ui, you may interested to join in the discussions:
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,36502.msg243375.html#msg243375
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,49572.msg359763.html#msg359763
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,49503.msg358932.html#msg358932

3- reduce the exe file directly when deploy no need for stip exe


Did you meant the size of the compiled binaries? If yes you should read the wiki before you say something about it.

4- add more components to online package manager

Yeah, this is great. But as far as I know OPM is maintained by a single person. If you have time, you should contact him and offer your help.

5-find easier way to add new components with rebuild the ide again

I guess you meant installing new component without rebuilding the IDE. Again it has been discussed, search the forum if you're interested. It is not as easy as you thought and it has disadvantages of doing it.


I appreciate your suggestions to make Lazarus better, unfortunately ... maybe you didn't know ... we are lack of manpower. Hopefully, all your wishes will come true but it needs time.


4- add more components to online package manager
Are the 179 packages in online package manager not enough?

Human is greed. If you give him a thousand, he will ask ten thousands.
WordPress has more than 50 thousands plugins and still increasing.
« Last Edit: June 23, 2020, 09:15:29 pm by Handoko »

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4551
  • I like bugs.
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2020, 09:53:14 pm »
i have some suggestions:
...
This has nothing to do with the new bug fix release 2.0.10.
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

Martin_fr

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10788
  • Debugger - SynEdit - and more
    • wiki
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2020, 09:58:21 pm »
i have some suggestions:
...
This has nothing to do with the new bug fix release 2.0.10.
I was just about to add that....

This thread is about things that already have an existing fix.

In the past we did build releases, and sometimes forgot to include an existing bug fix, even though it would have been easily possible to include it.
Hence we now ask...

Not all changes that are in trunk can be included in minor releases. But at least we will look at them.

---
However anyone feeling they might contribute, is invited to open a thread on the topic and find out what and how they can do.

alaa123456789

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
  • Try your Best to learn & help others
    • youtube:
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #6 on: June 24, 2020, 09:37:01 pm »
i have some suggestions:
Excellent. Do it.

i wish i am hero like you ,so i can share knowledge with others rather than  underestimate them

thanks

Martin_fr

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10788
  • Debugger - SynEdit - and more
    • wiki
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #7 on: June 24, 2020, 10:01:28 pm »
4- add more components to online package manager
Are the 179 packages in online package manager not enough?
i wish i am hero like you so i can share knowledge with others rather than  underestimate them

Well, if you ask a big group of people, you get a big mix of answers. Some you might have expected, some will surprise you (good and bad)....
All of your points are totally valid (and the more components (of quality) the better => thats why OPM was created).

But your points may be valid, they are still all points that everyone here knows very well.
If you searched the forum, you would have seen that.

So because of the very obvious nature of your ideas (most of them), to some of us, its a little bit like you are mocking us. ;)


Don't get that wrong either. You can (and maybe should) still make your points. A little reminder never hurts.
Though some points need more detail (and for that a thread of their own): "improve" (aka "make better") is rather vague, nebulous and also subjective. 

Also: "Ideas" are nice, but cheap. That is, without someone who will do the work, an idea is nothing.
Many people throw in ideas. The existing contributors and developers pick up some (rather few) of them. (limited by available manpower).
So the next step is then to find someone (existing or new contributor) who finds your idea interesting and wants to work on it.


Docking (1) has some work being done on, from time to time. So if a problem exists, and the problem is described in a reproducible way, then it may get picked up (with more or less delay, not sure what priority work on it has).
As for "embedded form designer" -> there was some discussion on it recently. I don't recall the results.
To see what the latests is, you may want to check out Trunk.

Adding components without rebuild (5): That is underway. but slowly. Its a feature that is planned to be added to fpc. (dynamic packages). I know it is worked on, but apparently with little time avail. So it may still take some time. (afaik, its been ongoing for some years now)
 
Adding OPM components (4): That is really an issue of finding people who write them. Any user can contribute.

Removing need for strip (3): I have not tested -Xs should do that, if not then there is work needed. Also making it avail without need to do lots of config: See discussion on release vs debug build mode. But again: contributor needed. (Or lots of time, until someone can free up enough time)

PascalDragon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5851
  • Compiler Developer
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #8 on: June 24, 2020, 10:24:57 pm »
Docking (1) has some work being done on, from time to time. So if a problem exists, and the problem is described in a reproducible way, then it may get picked up (with more or less delay, not sure what priority work on it has).
As for "embedded form designer" -> there was some discussion on it recently. I don't recall the results.
To see what the latests is, you may want to check out Trunk.

Well, there is this bug and also what ChristianH had mentioned here.

Adding components without rebuild (5): That is underway. but slowly. Its a feature that is planned to be added to fpc. (dynamic packages). I know it is worked on, but apparently with little time avail. So it may still take some time. (afaik, its been ongoing for some years now)

To be fair: the only benefit of dynamic packages will be that the IDE won't need to be rebuild anymore. Other than that there is literally no further benefit. In the short term there will even be more trouble, because a) the IDE needs to learn to handle PPU/PCP files so that code completion won't break for binary only packages (though PPU only Lazarus packages would benefit from this today already as well) and b) that you could easily compile packages with different compiler versions which will result in the package not loading, because the version of the used compiler will have to match exactly (currently Lazarus will simply rebuild everything with the selected compiler).

Edit: And rebuilding the IDE is really comfortable done inside Lazarus...
 
Removing need for strip (3): I have not tested -Xs should do that, if not then there is work needed. Also making it avail without need to do lots of config: See discussion on release vs debug build mode. But again: contributor needed. (Or lots of time, until someone can free up enough time)

Or people could use -Xg...

mangakissa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1131
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #9 on: June 25, 2020, 08:23:35 am »

The Lazarus team has scheduled

      Lazarus 2.0.10
      for July 2020 (estimated 4th to 11th)

      This release will be built with FPC 3.2.0.

Gooed Job. I think a lot of people waited to this  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Lazarus 2.06 (64b) / FPC 3.0.4 / Windows 10
stucked on Delphi 10.3.1

JuhaManninen

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4551
  • I like bugs.
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #10 on: June 25, 2020, 10:38:07 am »
i think all of us came to this forum trying to improve and develop Lazarus , ...
@alaa123456789, do you realize that you hijacked a thread about the coming bug fix release 2.0.10?
Please don't do so. It is not nice.
For some reason others continued with the hijacked content.
If you want to discuss new or old ideas, please do it in a proper forum section, for example :
 Forum »Using the Lazarus IDE »General
Mostly Lazarus trunk and FPC 3.2 on Manjaro Linux 64-bit.

Martin_fr

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10788
  • Debugger - SynEdit - and more
    • wiki

marcov

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 12025
  • FPC developer.
Re: Re: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #12 on: June 25, 2020, 03:02:50 pm »

To be fair: the only benefit of dynamic packages will be that the IDE won't need to be rebuild anymore.

Well, the IDE will also become slower, and thus be more like the various competing products we are constantly compared with ;-)
 

PascalDragon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5851
  • Compiler Developer
Re: Ideas / MOVED FROM: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #13 on: June 25, 2020, 04:24:16 pm »

To be fair: the only benefit of dynamic packages will be that the IDE won't need to be rebuild anymore.

Well, the IDE will also become slower, and thus be more like the various competing products we are constantly compared with ;-)

The startup time might become more, but once it's running there shouldn't be any significant differences: The trampolines to the imported functions are unconditional jumps and the branch predictor of the CPU should handle that rather well. For the RTTI FPC 3.2 is already using indirect references for the type information the only difference will be direct use of TypeInfo, but the IDE mostly uses TObject.ClassInfo due to the class registrations anyway.

Handoko

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5386
  • My goal: build my own game engine using Lazarus
Re: Ideas / MOVED FROM: We are planning the next release: Lazarus 2.0.10
« Reply #14 on: June 25, 2020, 06:26:19 pm »
Thank you all for the explanations about dynamic packages.

I do starting Lazarus lots more often than rebuilding it, so I prefer quick loading rather than rebuilding-less packages. But I trust the development team, whichever you choose I am okay.

 

TinyPortal © 2005-2018