Improving Lazarus IDE...

[BigChimp]

Big Chimp - sorry, but you have it wrong.  Laz, by default, installs into a C:\lazarus folder - NOT the c:\Program Files.  This means that it does not need any special permissions to update its own directory or sub-directory. If Laz followed Windows standards it would install in C:\Program files\Lazarus ...   but it doesn't follow standards...  there is no need for Laz to use User Folders for storing preferences - just store them in Laz folder.

If alternative startups can be achieved by Dos startup prameters - dont you think its time we entered the 21st century and stopped expecting users to even know what they are?

Excuse me, I was under the impression that we were talking about multiple Lazarus installs, not where it installed.

As for permissions etc: the installer could fix that for c:\lazarus by asking for elevated privileges and changing the permissions.

As for DOS parameters: well everybody's free to write batch scripts. You can also stuff parameters in desktop shortcuts etc. Seems a bit more... ehm... 21st century

Yes, I think it's time we enter the 21st century, however you can blame the antiquated make.exe etc tools that do not support path names with spaces (let alone UTF8 path names). These should be updated otherwise nothing works.

I agree it's nasty and I'm sure patches/fixes will be much appreciated.

Personnally, I don't care that much because I switched off UAC and just use fpcup that keeps everything contained in c:\development.

[Pascaluvr]

Thanks for the replies Giu an Zoran.  I will definitely use this.

But back to the OP ...  why in the year 2013 do we still need a .BAT file to customize Lazarus.  (Sorry, but my sense of humour - or sense of the ridiculous
cuts in here) We have a great Object Oriented Programming Language that seems to interact with most modern platforms and modern standards - but needs a DOS Command line .BAT file (15 years out of date) to even start up?

If someone wants to improve Lazarus IDE - this would be a GREAT place to start.

[BigChimp]

But back to the OP ...  why in the year 2013 do we still need a .BAT file to customize Lazarus.
cuts in here)

You don't. As I said already.

[Pascaluvr]

But back to the OP ...  why in the year 2013 do we still need a .BAT file to customize Lazarus.
cuts in here)

You don't. As I said already.

Big Chimp,

I truly respect you and don't wish to argue - but you really miss the point.

The OP raised the question of 'improving Lazarus' - I guess there is no need if you think its already perfect.  But in my eyes it is NOT.

To install a 2nd copy of Laz I need to search the web for directions and use .BAT files for startup or find alternative installation procedures not available with Laz as standard.  Surely I am not the only person that likes to test new software versions before replacing the old version?  This is standard procedure for any critical software.    I guess some people dont see Laz as critical software .. so it doesn't matter?

The topic is 'IMPROVING LAZARUS' - the topic is not = "Bitching about Lazarus" - or even "Whats wrong with Lazarus" - its simply "IMPROVING LAZARUS" - and I gave a very simple suggestion.  When I download a new version of Lazarus I would like to be able to install in a new folder (the install lets me do that) and create a test version - this is where the install stuffs up - it 'remembers' some stuff from the original install - updates some of it - then neither version works!  Very simple - let each install keep its own defaults - sounds pretty simple to me

[BigChimp]

Mmmm, we might be talking at cross-purposes here. I tried to indicate why Lazarus hasn't been improved already and what things need to be addressed to improve Lazarus.

I don't think Lazarus is perfect either, but *personnally* (I intentionally italicized that word earlier to indicate the difference with what I think Lazarus should be versus what I need out of it) I can live with those limitations.... Why? Because I basically wrote my own installer (fpcup) that makes it easy to maintain multiple separate copies of Lazarus/FPC.[1]

Regarding 2nd install: yes, improving the installer could be a good idea. Wouldn't be extremely difficult, I'd think.
The installer could create another config path and place new shortcuts with *wait for it* --pcp=bla in it on the desktop, start menu, whatever. No need for batch files. (Look e.g. at how fpcup creates its own desktop shortcut with another primary config path).

I know the subject is not "Bitching about Lazarus" but as countless of these threads have come and gone, there is usually lot of noise and no/none/zero/zilch actual improvements in Lazarus. So I'd thought I'd add some background info so people interested in improving the installer, providing new make.exe etc can actually make a meaningful contribution.

Hope this clears things up a bit.

[1] That was not the only reason for writing fpcup - I was tired of having to fiddle with all kind of shell scripts/batch files for various platforms to keep Laz/FPC SVN up to date.

[JanRoza]

Someone who uses Lazarus is most likely a programmer, so a technical person. May we not expect a programmer to have at least some knowledge about Windows or Linux and how those operating systems can be manipulated (by batch files and parameters)?
How can you ever expect to make an application in Lazarus if even the simple knowledge of batch files is already too much work?
For end users I agree, they should not be bothered with tecnicalities.
Just my humble opinion.

[JuhaManninen]

When I download a new version of Lazarus I would like to be able to install in a new folder (the install lets me do that) and create a test version - this is where the install stuffs up - it 'remembers' some stuff from the original install - updates some of it - then neither version works!

In fact different versions of Lazarus should work even if they share the same configuration. Then they affect each other which is not practical, but that is another thing. What error you get?

Are you sure your problems are caused by many Lazarus installations, or are they caused by many FPC installations?
FPC is a compiler, Lazarus is an IDE. They are 2 different things.
You can compile many Lazarus versions using the same FPC, and I recommend you do so. Installing and configuring many FPC instances is much more difficult than doing it for Lazarus instances.
This is analogous with GCC compiler versus QtCreator + Qt library. Have you tried installing and configuring many simultaneous versions of GCC? How did it go?

A real improvement would be to have always separate installation packages for FPC and Lazarus.
Then it would be clear to everybody that they are 2 different things.
On Linux they are separate but unfortunately the Windows package contains both. I don't know why. And people act like dummies. They install the latest massive snapshot package, including FPC, just to test latest Lazarus changes, then they have a conflict with an old .ppu file and they create yet another bug report about "Lazarus does not compile". Uhhh...!

The right way is to install the release version of FPC. Or install FPC trunk, no problem, but do it separately from Lazarus.
Then get Lazarus sources for the versions you want and compile with "make all" or "make bigide". Cannot be much simpler.
The sources you can get with "svn co ..." and later "svn up", or using the nice SVN GUI tools in 2013 spirit. Cannot be much simpler either.

Now we are talking about an advanced programming environment! This is not a phonebook or calculator application.
A person who wants to do an advanced setup with many simultaneous versions of such a programming environment, yet does not want to know anything about source code or revisioning, has a serious attitude problem IMO.

[Pascaluvr]

Someone who uses Lazarus is most likely a programmer, so a technical person. May we not expect a programmer to have at least some knowledge about Windows or Linux and how those operating systems can be manipulated (by batch files and parameters)?
How can you ever expect to make an application in Lazarus if even the simple knowledge of batch files is already too much work?
For end users I agree, they should not be bothered with tecnicalities.
Just my humble opinion.

Jan,

Fair point EXCEPT

I have been with computers for 45 years....
My First computer language was Autocoder on an IBM 1401 - I cant remember a single command.
After that I moved up IBM 360 - used PL/1 (similar to pascal) and assembler - forgot that too
I had PC's before the first Apple
etc etc etc


The brain/memory is an amazing device - it removes unused information to make room for new.

When Win95 arrived, i used the CMD window and batch files for several more years - but sheeech - thats almost 20 years ago!!!!!!!!!

Apart from Lazarus - I HAVE NOT NEEDED A .BAT FILE IN 15 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sorry Jan - enjoy your obsolete technology!

[Pascaluvr]

Sorry all - the below is a reply  to a message that was deleted minutes after it was posted.....   so ignore the following:




The RIGHT WAY????????   where does any documentation say that ??????????????????

Where am i sposed to learn what the hell SVC is...  or even why i need it?

Why wouldn't i download a bundled FPC/Laz as having the best chance of having been tested as working together?

[BigChimp]

Apart from Lazarus - I HAVE NOT NEEDED A .BAT FILE IN 15 YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Sorry Jan - enjoy your obsolete technology!

Seems you're unusually unreceptive to my posts.
YOU DON'T NEED A BATCH FILE; YOU (OR A PROGRAM) CAN CREATE A DESKTOP ICON WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS IN THE TARGET PROPERTY:

Code: [Select]

C:\Development\lazarus64_fpctrunk\lazarus.exe --pcp="c:\development\lazarus64settings_fpctrunk"

BIGCHIMP OVER & OUT.

[Pascaluvr]

Sorry BigChimp.

I am just getting unreceptive to people who continue to justify completely outdated technology.

[JuhaManninen]

Why wouldn't i download a bundled FPC/Laz as having the best chance of having been tested as working together?

You can.
However having many versions installed simultaneously is considered an advanced act.
It is done only by people who like to experiment and play with those versions. Solving the associated problems is kind of implied part of the "game".

Internet is full of info about SW revision control. I recommend you learn some if you still plan to do programming, or even just follow programming done by others.

[Pascaluvr]

Why wouldn't i download a bundled FPC/Laz as having the best chance of having been tested as working together?

You can.
However having many versions installed simultaneously is considered an advanced act.
It is done only by people who like to experiment and play with those versions. Solving the associated problems is kind of implied part of the "game".

Internet is full of info about SW revision control. I recommend you learn some if you still plan to do programming, or even just follow programming done by others.

I am not following programming done by others - i am purely here to program for my own purposes.

As for many versions....   nope .. just 2 ....   my current version and the 'next' (especially when it fixes a problem I am having)

[Pascaluvr]

Clearly people here dont want to discuss 'improving lazarus' - it must be perfect already.   Sorry guys, i wont bother you with with any suggestions ever again

[taazz]

People here do discuss your ideas, some agree some don't. Trying to force your idea of acceptable to the project can be done in one and only one way. Implement the feature your self. Anything else is just discussion. Just to be clear the way the IDE is build was never heap or modern or what ever you want to call it, even when it was first introduced back in 199x it had people screaming that it was not according to what it was considered acceptable. That doesn't make it any less usable. Of course there are a few things that will be cut off for the docked interface like the poDesign form's position which has no meaning when docked.

Overall you are out of line with your last post, that's OK in my book, after all what you brought in to the table wasn't any thing new just personal opinions about an old issue.