synapse and mac

[cpalx]

hello, i am trying to send a mail using Lazarus and a gmail account (uses SSL/TLS) i try to use synapse example, nut it can not compile it needs libc and lazarus does not recognize it. Any idea?

[theo]

Which version of Synapse?

Afaics Lukas improved Mac support in trunk 8 days ago:
http://synalist.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/synalist/trunk/?sortby=date#dirlist

[cpalx]

thanks i downloaded the last thrinl and it can compile, i will try now.

[dieselnutjob]

is synaser working on Mac OS X now? has anyone tried it?

[cpalx]

I am testing, until now it is working some things, i need to test more ...

[theo]

If you have problems with Synapse, write to the Synapse Mailing List:
http://synapse.ararat.cz/doku.php/support

Lukas Gebauer (Author of Synapse) is a capable man, but he has always backward compatibility for older Delphis in mind and changes don't always come easy for him, but they will be applied after some time.
The result of this - his behaviour - is, that Synapse is very reliable over time and there are no major version jumps.

Imho he is doing a great job in maintaining Synapse for the last 10? years,
being very conservative.

And this is for me the point why I choose Synapse:
lNet is a young project, almost undocumented and for Lazarus only afaics.
Indy is and was always a bloated thing with hard to understand and often poorly implemented functions. It can do everything but only halfway, and you run the risk to rewrite your code after a version upgrade. This never happened to me with Synapse.

The reason why Indy is hyped is imho only that the Delphi and Lazarus "spokesmen" would like to create the impression, that you can write a performant server with a few clicks on your form. But this is not going to fly.

I had a commercial job (Swiss Bank, Delphi) where they wanted me to fix a problem with unreliable e-mail functions in an existing project.
When I saw they were using Indy, it was almost clear to me what the problem was. The first thing I did, was to throw away the Indy crap and then I re-implemented everything using Synapse. They paid the bill and I have never heard of any complaints ever since.

Conclusio: Indy can do everything and seems easy at first sight. But is going to (my english is not good enough, but I'd say step you in your back, ass. chose the right expression, in german "es tritt dich in den Hintern") after some time.
lnet: Seems serious, has only a few protocol implemetations and is undocumented.
Synapse: Is well tested, documented, and reliable, with the most important prototcols implemented. Plus, once you understand it, you have the good feeling of knowing what you do, which you never have with Indy.

[marcov]

Indy is and was always a bloated thing with hard to understand and often poorly implemented functions. It can do everything but only halfway, and you run the risk to rewrite your code after a version upgrade. This never happened to me with Synapse.

Indy is huge, and there are a few areas that I avoid (like having Indy "parse" mails). But generally it worked for me, and the indy9->indy10 upgrade was the only one that required (quite minor) changes in nearly 8 years of use.

The reason why Indy is hyped is imho only that the Delphi and Lazarus "spokesmen" would like to create the impression, that you can write a performant server with a few clicks on your form. But this is not going to fly.

No, it simply has the best protocol support. The FTP component is very compatible, which gets important in larger corporations that run all kinds of funky stuff.

However the main reasons I use Indy is because Synapse is always too late with implementing functionality.

1. I started using Indy on Delphi at the time because it could do SSL. Synapse couldn't.
2. Later, when FPC came around, during the Indy10 rewrite, they kept an eye out for an FPC implementation based on the FPC's own units, included a decent DEFINE system etc.    Synapse was still betting on a dying Kylix libc compatibility.