Future of Lazarus / FreePascal

[touchring]

@CaptBill

At the end of the day is your preference and choice. I have some friends that leave Java and go to dynamic  languages such PHP, Perl and so. I always hated dynamic languages but now I have no option but use JavaScript (with Sencha's ExtJS) to get the results I need/want.

Have you seen Unigui?

[TurboRascal]

Call me conservative if you wish, but I simply cannot see the difference between deploying an application on a local network by creating a desktop icon pointing to "http://myserver/myapp.whateverext" or one pointing to "\\myserver\myshare\myapp.exe" (Windows desktop example). Except maybe that the client from the latter case will be a bit faster and more responsive, and that it might continue to work even if the network goes down (if it has a local cache, an example would be a dislocated POS site)!

Similar example would be on Linux, just the link would be something like "smb://myserver/myhare/myapp" or "/net/myserver/mydir/myapp" (of course, Lazarus can compile "myapp" to both Windows or Linux)

I, for example, would never agree to have apps in browser on my computer, either for speed, or network dependence (I hate being dependent on anything), or the fact that if a website/webapp crashes the browser, it would crash all the apps (I also hate system crashes  ) which would be similar to working in Windows 9x.

Perhaps I was also wrong when C++ had its hayday with business and academia, and I've hated it as I do today? But wait, it has fallen out of grace in the meantime. Now is the time of Java and C#. Did Imention I hate those too?  But I've always loved Pascal all the way

There were also times of "peer to peer" networking, with LANMAN and "Windows for Workgroups" when it was announced that the future has begun and practically servers and other big computers are obsolete and dead forever. Why then there are more servers today than ever before?

I don't care much for this season's fashion. Everything that has proven useful during the years will live on. New and "revolutionary" stuff has yet to prove itself, and much of it gets lost in history and laughed on in retrospect...

[touchring]

Call me conservative if you wish, but I simply cannot see the difference between deploying an application on a local network by creating a desktop icon pointing to "http://myserver/myapp.whateverext" or one pointing to "\\myserver\myshare\myapp.exe" (Windows desktop example). Except maybe that the client from the latter case will be a bit faster and more responsive, and that it might continue to work even if the network goes down (if it has a local cache, an example would be a dislocated POS site)!

I know it sounds crazy.  When you tell a company IT administrator that you are selling a client-server software, you can see fear in their eyes - omg, another Windows app to deploy/support and brings forth thoughts of messy installation, dll conflicts and risk of virus/malware infection or just false detection with the company AV.  Windows software does not have a good reputation.  M$ office apps hang all the time.  The average IT administrator today might have to support >100 machines.  Time is precious.

So in the absence of a web based client, what I did was to shrink my client into a standalone EXE, put it on a web server (using Synapse), put up a link for users to download the client on the default page, e.g. "http://myserver/myapp.whateverext".  I also included a screen capture on how to run the EXE after the browser has downloaded it.  The app creates a shortcut to the desktop own its own, after which the user only needs to run the client from the desktop.  The best thing is no admin rights is required to install the client!

Of course if you are developing for your company instead for an external customer, you can use any method which you think works best, even a DOS client, which some think works faster and better than a Windows client, as long as you can convince your partners or your boss (if you work for them) that client-server is superior to web based.

[BigChimp]

Touchring, nice marketing  You've got an application that you can download using the web browser, that practically means it's "in the cloud" - there you go, all buzzword compliant 

Regardless of what happens with Windows servers (and yes, I've seen indications that the number of Linux servers is going up), Windows desktops are and will remain (IMO) the standard in companies for the foreseeable future. Of course, people do want to use their mobile gadgets etc but in the end, a client server app is more comfortable. Don't know if HTML5 etc will change that.

I also agree that it would be very nice to be able to develop web applications the way we can develop Lazarus apps. Had a look at Morphix (IIRC) but they started to strip down their free version.
On the other hand, there's tons of existing software on Windows desktops where developers want a fairly painless port to OSX. Lazarus would be a good way to provide that and throw a Linux port almost for free.

Still, I'm just a hobby programmer and manage to scratch my itch for now, so I don't really have anything to do with the way the corporate world goes....

[touchring]

Regardless of what happens with Windows servers (and yes, I've seen indications that the number of Linux servers is going up), Windows desktops are and will remain (IMO) the standard in companies for the foreseeable future. Of course, people do want to use their mobile gadgets etc but in the end, a client server app is more comfortable. Don't know if HTML5 etc will change that.

With fast browsers like Chrome, HTML5 can generate forms that are 80%-90% of real Windows forms.  I've no doubt that in 5 years, they will be as good as Windows apps.

To business end users, they want a web version of all their business apps.  Of course the business end users won't care if the amount of work required to program and debug those fanciful forms are 10 times the effort and difficulty of a Delphi or Lazarus app.

[motaz]

One of the most important issues is that: Form based applications could access and get benefit of all client plateform (OS + Software + Hardware), but Web based application could access browser only, and browser could not replace the full operating system and client machine

[BigChimp]

True, motaz, but I'm sure there will be a new hype that allows web based applications to communicate back with hardware, and we'll be back where we started...
(Somebody above posted all these hypes come and go - I agree and things seem to repeat themselves: client/server with mainframe=>standalone pcs with sneakernet=>client server with pc=>client/server with web apps in or out of the cloud... a lot of "new" things that are actually quite old).

I think Marco does have a point: we can't compete with the marketing might of .Net and Java, but we might be able to service niche markets, and maybe because of that gain more acceptance mainstream (or not).

Ah well, I'll get some coffee, maybe that will cheer me up...

[touchring]

True, motaz, but I'm sure there will be a new hype that allows web based applications to communicate back with hardware, and we'll be back where we started...
(Somebody above posted all these hypes come and go - I agree and things seem to repeat themselves: client/server with mainframe=>standalone pcs with sneakernet=>client server with pc=>client/server with web apps in or out of the cloud... a lot of "new" things that are actually quite old).

I think Marco does have a point: we can't compete with the marketing might of .Net and Java, but we might be able to service niche markets, and maybe because of that gain more acceptance mainstream (or not)

Sure, Google has a new platform for Chrome, native code or something, can't remember the name...

I believe that it is still possible to find a niche market out of mainstream web based and cloud "hype".  Morfik is already trying to do that, aren't they?

[marcov]

Regardless of what happens with Windows servers (and yes, I've seen indications that the number of Linux servers is going up), Windows desktops are and will remain (IMO) the standard in companies for the foreseeable future. Of course, people do want to use their mobile gadgets etc but in the end, a client server app is more comfortable. Don't know if HTML5 etc will change that.

With fast browsers like Chrome, HTML5 can generate forms that are 80%-90% of real Windows forms.  I've no doubt that in 5 years, they will be as good as Windows apps.

That is exactly the problem. The technology still mutates way to hard. Longevity of webapps is quite often a problem
 

[marcov]

That's true but Windows itself is dying.  Google Android and Apple have already dominated the smart phone, tablet and soon the TV market.  With Ubuntu, even a novice like me can run Linux servers.

You are confusing publicity and _general_ revenue with revenue for software developer.

Developers only get a very, very small piece of the android or apple pie. (and that is increasingly going in the pocket of a few big ones, think Zynga and Angry bird likes)

More importantly, most of the benefit is in business software. I still have to find the first case where a business app got abandoned for an Android app.
(use android as client, maybe. But replace, no way)

[touchring]

You are confusing publicity and _general_ revenue with revenue for software developer.

Developers only get a very, very small piece of the android or apple pie. (and that is increasingly going in the pocket of a few big ones, think Zynga and Angry bird likes)

More importantly, most of the benefit is in business software. I still have to find the first case where a business app got abandoned for an Android app.
(use android as client, maybe. But replace, no way)

Yes, I know, I'm actually talking about browser based apps, which is suppose to work on cellphones, as opposed to Windows client only apps.  Being able to work on handheld devices is a good thing but main target market is still PC.

Regardless of what happens with Windows servers (and yes, I've seen indications that the number of Linux servers is going up), Windows desktops are and will remain (IMO) the standard in companies for the foreseeable future. Of course, people do want to use their mobile gadgets etc but in the end, a client server app is more comfortable. Don't know if HTML5 etc will change that.

With fast browsers like Chrome, HTML5 can generate forms that are 80%-90% of real Windows forms.  I've no doubt that in 5 years, they will be as good as Windows apps.

That is exactly the problem. The technology still mutates way to hard. Longevity of webapps is quite often a problem

I agree, browser based is still not as good as native client.  For example, I would prefer to download my gmails than to use the web client.  But many users "don't know how to" download their gmail and continue to use the web client.

[marcov]

Yes, I know, I'm actually talking about browser based apps, which is suppose to work on cellphones, as opposed to Windows client only apps. 

Nearly everything for mobile is specially crafted for it. So it might not matter that much if you recraft a website to a mobile specific html+javascript based app, or recompile your LCL app for something else.

That is exactly the problem. The technology still mutates way to hard. Longevity of webapps is quite often a problem

I agree, browser based is still not as good as native client.  For example, I would prefer to download my gmails than to use the web client.  But many users "don't know how to" download their gmail and continue to use the web client.

True. But they don't pay for either the client or gmail, so those are just trumped up empty numbers. It is the free bit, and the fact that the service is pushed by the mobile vendor that makes it popular, not the tech.

So that is actually a case against mobile webapps, since when you do apps with the same tech and limitations, and put it in the appstore, there is no reason for the customer to buy it.

[Alexsander]

So in the absence of a web based client, what I did was to shrink my client into a standalone EXE, put it on a web server (using Synapse), put up a link for users to download the client on the default page, e.g. "http://myserver/myapp.whateverext".  I also included a screen capture on how to run the EXE after the browser has downloaded it.  The app creates a shortcut to the desktop own its own, after which the user only needs to run the client from the desktop.  The best thing is no admin rights is required to install the client!

My company has a product (ERP+CRM+WMS+etc) being ported to Lazarus. There's a 2.x version written in D7 that's being gradually replaced by the new version 3.0 that's 100% Lazarus. We build every release for both Windows and Linux; the app itself checks if there's a newest version and automatically download it from the local network. The 3.0 version is a work in progress, our customers are aware of that, so we release new revisions at least once per week. It's being used in production for over an year. The 3.0 version already has more than half the features of the old one and we hope to say goodbye to 2.0 until the end of 2012.

The WMS module runs on mobile computers and is written in C, and some other tools are also C, but we are considering port them to Free Pascal too (after the 3.0 port, of course). We firmly believe in Lazarus' future, that's why we choose it in first place. There's an (slightly oudated) blog on the port: http://port2laz.blogspot.com

[felipemdc]

The WMS module runs on mobile computers

What do you mean by mobile computers? Which operating systems are those running?

[mirce.vladimirov]

As i can see, there are a lot of posts under this subject and i did not read them all, but I'm provoked by the headline itself, "Future of Lazarus and FreePascal" and I will try to keep on that.
According to my perception, most popular (popularity changes all the time) are Java, .Net (I say dot-not, will explain why) C++ and PHP, and Delphi/Lazarus are not far behind. But, becoming popular is a complex matter wich involves quality plus powerfull marketing and other minor stuff... Delphi as a proprietary software is a good tool, but it lacks marketing. Lazarus on the other hand is a free software which means has zero marketing and it develops slow (not as fast as comercial software). The competition software develpment tools has it, we know that Java is Oracle's, C# is M$'s etc, etc...
Among these, dot-not is not end-user friendly because when you develop an application you dont know where it's going to be deployed, which version of Win**ws, wether it's XP, Vista, or w7. A dot-not binary   has heavy dependency on dot-not libraries, which are OFTEN not installed on the client PC, and you simply cannot run the application, just waste your time and resist clients questions "why it doesnot work ? when it's going to wokr ? Who is responsible ?". Additional negativity of dot-not is - it lacks cross-platform portability.
Java is for free, multi-platform, runs on all possible OS's, but it depends on java runtime environment.
PHP is free software, nice and multi platform but it depends on web-browsers which is limitating, you cant create a native, standalone application.
Lazarus (which is twin brother of Delphi) is free-software, runs on i-dont-know-how-many-diferent-OS's from PDA, various Windows, Mac, Android... and a binary created by Delphi/Lazarus doesnot depend on anything, just runs. It's good when you make a product that doesnot depend on anything, users love it.
So, Lazarus has HUGE advantages compared to it's comercial competitors. Produces a stable binary, is multi platform and creates non-dependable binary.
Disadvantages are same as with all other free software: it's development is slower (compared to proprietary software) and lacks marketing.
But my personal view is that software comunity in the world needs a such a product as it is.
It's a great tool, built by volunteers but still worsk best of all, i love it, can make a lot with Lazarus.