Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Your project was probably doing something wrong or weird since the Lazarus and Free Pascal developers have gone to great lengths to avoid breaking backwards compatibility - i have code from 10 years ago that compiles almost without changes. The only change that i have to do is when i abused strings as byte buffers that wouldn't work in Free Pascal 3.0. However that was something the FPC developers said for years and they made several release candidates so that people can report back issues. Even then the change was simply replacing all uses of `string` with `rawbytestring`.

The only backwards compatibility breaking they do is when they are fixing compiler bugs that shouldn't be used anyway. For example at some point it was possible to take the address of a property getter and this usually worked, but not always. They changed that to be illegal (according to the language reference it was illegal anyway) so any code that relied on that would need to change (a simple change would be to make a new property or function that gave back the address of the private reference and mark it as inline so that you wont get any performance penalty).

Personally i am very anal about backwards compatibility and i have abandoned tons of libraries (SDL, GTK, Qt, etc) because of that. In my experience Free Pascal, LCL and Lazarus are among the most stable frameworks to the point that they prefer to keep unnecessary things around for years just in case someone is still using them or introduce unnecessary options for the framework to change behavior in case someone is still relying on the old one (this is why for example you get a `RequireDerivedFormResource:=True;` line in new projects, older projects wont have this line which affects the behavior of how forms are created).

Obviously i don't know what your project was doing but you don't really provide any description (both of the issues you mentioned i haven't encountered), so i put my counter-experience here since i wouldn't like people to get the impression that Lazarus doesn't care about backwards compatibility. For me it is a prime example of a very complex project doing backwards compatibility right (hell, the Lazarus IDE itself can even be compiled with Free Pascal compilers that are years old just in case someone might for whatever reason - like the few cases mentioned above, or use FPC from some Linux distribution that only has old versions - be stuck with them). Things that break backwards compatibility are considered important bugs and are fixed - sometimes even at the cost of getting things "right".




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: