lazarus GUI like Delphi 7 to 100%

[BSaidus]

Hi!
Is there any plan to design lazarus GUI as Delphi7 GUI 100% (i.e toolbars, packages ... ) ?
thanks

[Marc]

nope. Not 100%, besides that, we add our own improvements

[Leledumbo]

What for? We are better, still actively developed compared to that dead product*

*) in terms of development support

[skalogryz]

Hi!
Is there any plan to design lazarus GUI as Delphi7 GUI 100% (i.e toolbars, packages ... ) ?
thanks

Could you please be more specific? (with comparison screen shots, if possible).
In theory in can be achieved, however not as a part of "default Lazarus", but rather as an extension IDE package.

(The package will load with IDE and rearrange the layout to match Delphi 7 + introduce a menu open "make Delphi 7 like" )

Surprisingly, most of developers disregard the power of IDE plugins (considering them just to add more code libraries, rather than improving the toolset).

[BSaidus]

yes I know that lazarus is actively developped and I agree 100% that is a very good product,
But! for exemple if you close a project you must open other one or create a new else the IDE will be closed.
the tool bars in D7 wee can rearrange them.
not support a dynamic loading of packages.
EXE's still geat in size compared to that Delphi produce (even using upx and strip together).

thanks
 

[BigChimp]

See the FAQ for the size question. Summary: you're doing it wrong (e.g. using UPX), not the compiler/IDE.

Actually a lot of your questions are explained in Lazarus wiki articles (e.g. dynamic linking).

[BSaidus]

See the FAQ for the size question. Summary: you're doing it wrong (e.g. using UPX), not the compiler/IDE.

Actually a lot of your questions are explained in Lazarus wiki articles (e.g. dynamic linking).

ohhoh ! could you point me to the exact place of the faq ?? please !

[BigChimp]

Wow. Clicking the link to the faq and typing ctrl-f is too hard? I'm sorry about that.

Edit: hint: it's definitely in the first few answers. Phew, talk about lazy people...

[marcov]

EXE's still geat in size compared to that Delphi produce (even using upx and strip together).

Please provide numbers. Now it is impossible for us to judge if it is a configuration issue or just the normal
price of a portable LCL. UPX is nearly always a bad idea.

[JuhaManninen]

But! for exemple if you close a project you must open other one or create a new else the IDE will be closed.

You can close a project: Project -> Close Project.
You cannot do much anything then because a project is needed for session info. No big deal. The project can be the default non-saved project if you wish. You will not even notice there is a project.

the tool bars in D7 wee can rearrange them.
not support a dynamic loading of packages.

Now you list some missing features. It has nothing to do with making the IDE identical with Delphi 7.
Lazarus has MUCH more features than Delphi 7. Do you think they should be removed?
This is a small subset of the features:
  http://wiki.freepascal.org/New_IDE_features_since
Almost none of them exist in Delphi 7.

[Scoops]

There was a time when maybe Lazarus tried to be compatible with Delphi, but Lazarus
has grown and needs to keep growing, sometimes its not 100% like Delphi, but the code
wasnt copied from delphi so its obvious it will never be Delphi 7. I think the compatibility
is good enough maybe i have to tweak my code here and their but most coders like that.
Thats the price to pay for multi platform i suppose.  Which Delphi 7 doesnt have by the way.

Compatability is important but its not the be all and and all, we have to look to the future.

As for the IDE i like the old undocked style, i can move stuff around if i want.  Nice when
using multiple monitors, its a matter of taste and i think most of the people who write
code are not bothered by IDE eye candy, a nice quick easy IDE is all thats needed.
Keep up the good work all the Lazarus coders your work is appreciated.

[Leledumbo]

As a new guy, I can understand why you ask these but if you want to dig in, this has been discussed in the past, either here or the mailing list. Even some are documented in the wiki.

But! for exemple if you close a project you must open other one or create a new else the IDE will be closed.

By design, there's nothing can be done to change it.

not support a dynamic loading of packages.

High difficulty, has been planned, but no idea about the status.

EXE's still geat in size compared to that Delphi produce (even using upx and strip together).

Surely you haven't tried newer Delphi with its "cross platform" (quoted because it's not native) FireMonkey framework, there's a price to pay for platform independence and even more, widgetset independence, which Delphi 7 doesn't have.

[skalogryz]

But! for exemple if you close a project you must open other one or create a new else the IDE will be closed.

By design, there's nothing can be done to change it.

There're two factors that make me question this statement.
1. We're in 21st century (thinking about Mars colonies)
2. We're developing the best programming language ever

So I wouldn't be that sure saying "nothing can be done". Instead I'd say something classic like "patches are welcome".
Personally I hate this modal dialog when closing a project (because it looks too complex to me to be a modal dialog... yet again this is personal)
On the other hand Delphi 7 won't allow you do much in the IDE without a project opened. Except for quitting IDE, starting new or opening existing... and probably running some external tools. Oh yes... IDE configuration itself.

I'm sure, that making this modal dialog optional rather than mandatory is on someone's todo list (that keeps the dialog for ones who like it and removes it for the ones who doesn't)
And this kind of change is also a great experience for a new contributor to Lazarus IDE.
...hmm... now I'm thinking of starting a bounty for that.

[skalogryz]

not support a dynamic loading of packages.

High difficulty, has been planned, but no idea about the status.

Everyone, please keep in mind that "dynamic" packages brings a lot of statics into development.
Look at delphi experience, having dynamic packages, caused incompatibility across Delphi versions.
Any Delphi component these days have a list of package versions:
D7
D2008
D2010
DXE ... and blah...
Packages are incompatible on binary level, but in most cases are compatible on source level ($ifdefs are helping).
And I'm wondering how they manage to build all the packages for old version (I guess by using older versions of the compiler)

Since Lazarus requires static "packages" (thus IDE has to be rebuilt) the only compatibility requires is on the source level!
(Thus a package written for Lazarus 1.0 should work fine with 1.2 - and no need to make an extra version)...
Which is a plus.

Of course the negative part here is IDE itself has to be rebuilt (which looks like very odd process for Delphi users, but quite common for open source developers)

As an alternative to "installed" Packages (either dynamic or static), a package could be configurable.
A package describes its units and published classes and methods  (via "interface" section or an additional description file).
The IDE reads the description and creates proper "components" on the palette.
The Object Inspector would use the interface part of the units (instead of RTTI) to get published properties and events.
The Designer could place some "dummy" controls on the form (to indicate a component placed).
Pros:
* IDE doesn't have to be rebuilt when installing a new package
* A component implementation can be simplified since it doesn't have to care about "Designing" mode
* Close-source packages (kudos for commercial - however, this makes them FPC and LCL version dependant)
Cons:
* no WYSIWYG experience when working with components... but many components are not so informative during the development. And great number of components are not GUI controls at all.

[JuhaManninen]

I'm sure, that making this modal dialog optional rather than mandatory is on someone's todo list (that keeps the dialog for ones who like it and removes it for the ones who doesn't)
And this kind of change is also a great experience for a new contributor to Lazarus IDE.
...hmm... now I'm thinking of starting a bounty for that.

I have not heard of such plans. Typically this issue of closing a project bothers only new users. Later it becomes a non-issue because you don't really need to close them. You can always have either a saved project or the default "virtual" project open.
However you are not a new user. In what situation you need to explicitly close a project?
I have understood that a long time ago there was no dialog but it was added because many people wanted it.

Still, the code could be refactored so that session info is not tied to projects. It would be ok. It requires good knowledge of Lazarus internals and may be too difficult for new contributors though.