Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.programming.threads > #4322

Read again, i correct

Show all headers | View raw

Hello....

Read again, i correct

Delphi is much more rapid/RAD development solution than C++ and the 
horror that was MFC. Delphi VCL was also more complete than what Visual 
Basic,on the other hand with the new Delphi LLVM compilers there is a 
promise for more platforms and better low-level performance,

Here is the new LLVM-based Delphi compilers:

http://docwiki.embarcadero.com/RADStudio/Tokyo/en/LLVM-based_Delphi_Compilers


I think i will also continu to work more with Delphi and FreePascal and 
Lazarus, all of them use a "modern" Object Pascal that is much more 
powerful than pascal, you have to look at the new Delphi language that 
is powerful, i am also using the Delphi mode with FreePascal to be 
compatible with Delphi.

Delphi for example works on the following platforms:

Windows
Linux
macOS
iOS
Android

You have to look at the new Delphi here, it is very powerful:

https://www.embarcadero.com/products/delphi


Lazarus and FreePascal are very interesting to use, you have to look
at Lazarus here to notice it:

https://www.lazarus-ide.org/


What i love in Delphi and FreePascal is that
Delphi and FreePascal like ADA are more strongly typed than C++ or C and 
they come with range checking and Run-time checks that catch conversion 
from negative signed to unsigned , and catch out-of-bounds indices of 
dynamic and static arrays and catch arithmetic overflow etc. and you can 
also dynamically catch this exception of ERangeError etc. and that's 
good for reliability.

But C++ and C don't have range checking and many Run-time checks etc. so 
that's not good in C++ and C and that's not good for reliability and it 
is not good for safety-critical systems.


This is why i will also to continu to work more with Delphi and 
FreePascal and Lazarus, and my Delphi projects can be used with C++Builder.

Look for example at my last invention , here is my last invention for 
Delphi and FreePascal:

Scalable reference counting with efficient support for weak references

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/scalable-reference-counting-with-efficient-support-for-weak-references

You can find my other "inventions"(that are my scalable algorithms etc.) 
  and my other projects here:

https://sites.google.com/site/aminer68/

Also you can improve strict-type safety(and thus reliability) in Delphi 
and FreePascal with variants like this:

-- 

program test;

uses VARIANTS,SYSUTILS;

var f:double;
      a:integer;



FUNCTION ASSIGN(a,B:VARIANT):VARIANT;

begin

IF VARTYPE(A)=VARTYPE(B) THEN
BEGIN
A:=B;
RESULT:=A;
END
ELSE RAISE EXCEPTION.CREATE('ASSIGNEMENT NOT OK');


end;

begin

a:=2;

f:=a;

A:=ASSIGN(F,A);


end.
-- 


Here is the Vartype function:

http://docs.embarcadero.com/products/rad_studio/delphiAndcpp2009/HelpUpdate2/EN/html/delphivclwin32/Variants_VarType.html


I think C++ and C have many problems because they are "too" weakly 
typed, here is another problem of C++ and C, look at this C++ example:


===

#include <conio.h>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
#include <stdint.h>



double y;


void a1(unsigned int a)
{
cout << a  ;

}

int main()
{

unsigned int b;
int a;



y=3.4;


a1(y);


}

==


This will be accepted by C++ because the parameter a of a1() will equal 
3, but this is "not" correct for "reliability" and it is not accepted by 
Delphi and FreePascal and ADA because they are more strongly typed than 
C++ and C and they will give an error that the type of the parameter a 
of a1() is not the same as the type of y.


Also Delphi and FreePascal like ADA come with range checking and 
Run-time checks that catch conversion from negative signed to unsigned , 
and catch out-of-bounds indices of dynamic and static arrays and catch 
arithmetic overflow etc. and you can also dynamically catch this 
exception of ERangeError etc.

But C++ and C don't have range checking and don't have many Run-time 
checks etc. so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good for 
reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.

You can carefully read the following, it is very important:

https://critical.eschertech.com/2010/07/07/run-time-checks-are-they-worth-it/


And about Escher C++ Verifier, read carefully:

"Escher C Verifier enables the development of formally-verifiable 
software in a subset of C (based on MISRA-C 2012)."

Read here:

http://www.eschertech.com/products/index.php


So it verifies just a "subset" of C, so that's not good for C++
because for other applications that are not a subset of C , it can
not do for example Run-time checks, so we are again into
this problem again that  C++ and C don't have range checking and many 
Run-time checks, so that's not good in C++ and C because it is not good 
for reliability and it is not good for safety-critical systems.



Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.

Back to comp.programming.threads | Previous | Next | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Read again, i correct Sky89 <Sky89@sky68.com> - 2018-05-20 20:04 -0400

csiph-web