Stefan Glienke

And these topics even keep popping up in terms of marking them bold on the overview when only comments by ignored people were written - very annoying. While G+ was certainly not perfect the way notifications worked was fine except the impossibility to get notified on topics without leaving some dummy comment.

No, I want an opt-in, not an opt-out.

Can you tell which classes it considers? For example I have the interface unit in a package and many different DLL projects that implement this interface but not all of them or even none is being opened in the IDE. Is there the possibility to tell the plugin to consider certain directories with sources in them?

That reminds me of googling for PosEx without adding Delphi to put it into context...

If this thread is only a small foreshadowing of how the community (or rather individuals) would react and respond to an open source project and how things are getting discussed I have to say that I would not want to be part of it. Yes, everyone is permitted to his own opinions but the how is important - and I can see in other communities like for example the C# compiler or .Net Core projects that developers don't want to deal with bs and toxic waste but communicate in a civilized manner. ... and that coming from me known as someone who can voice his opinions in a strong way garnished with cursing often enough ...

Nooo! You can't stop this before it complies to godwin's law 😉

It is: https://llvm.org/docs/ExceptionHandling.html

I was tempted yesterday to use it until I figured out how to get the same result (also codegen wise with as little jumps as possible) using loops in a kinda readable way. 😉

Yes, you can do - however using DI with interfaces has a unique benefit in Delphi - you don't need to care for who is responsible for cleaning up. Leaving aside circular references and assuming a topdown object graph you can simply pass down dependencies even to more than one consumer and stuff gets cleaned up properly in the end. Without that you need to track who is the one owning a dependency and responsible for destroying it - possible but more complicated. In GC languages however having only one implementation for an interface (which you might want to do in Delphi because of the aforementioned reason) is considered a code smell by some - see https://blog.ploeh.dk/2010/12/02/Interfacesarenotabstractions/

https://quality.embarcadero.com/issues/?jql=text ~ "inline variable" and affectedVersion in ("10.3 Rio"%2C "10.3 Rio Release 1") and status not in (Resolved%2C Closed)

IDE tooling does not work properly and some of it completely stops, Also inline variables of a managed type are not always properly initialized. As much as I like this feature syntax wise - I would stay away from it for now 😞

This was implemented 10.3 via inline variables. It however is not possible to declare the variable in the old way plus initialize it - you have to declare it inline: procedure DoSomething; begin var MyVar: Integer = 23; // end; You can even omit the type there and it will automatically be Integer: procedure DoSomething; begin var MyVar = 23; // end; See http://blog.marcocantu.com/blog/2018-october-inline-variables-delphi.html

Look for code that uses type inference - if that only happens with DUnitX config, then look for Assert.something calls

The problem is that historically Delphi did not know about interfaces and many of the concepts he describes and even though Delphi now knows about interfaces the RTL/VCL and most of other basic frameworks don't use them. So most of the RTL/VCL code is still inheriting from more or less not really abstract classes in some long inheritance chains (remember those posters that came with older versions of Delphi?) - now try to teach a Delphi developer that only knows this example different...

There is a bit more to it than simply following a mantra - here is some more food for thought: https://www.thoughtworks.com/insights/blog/composition-vs-inheritance-how-choose

I predict that any time in the future the publisher does not want to block until all subscribers have processed their events and thus you will need to do that asynchronously which requires a less naive approach to iterate the subscribers. I know from my multicast events that this can cause a major headache trying to keep performance (not locking all the time) and still being able to detach subscribers in the middle of handling a publish without running into an off by one.

That is why in my lists (inspired by the behavior of .NET) it causes an exception when the source changes during enumeration causing the enumerator to be possible invalid. I also have a Remove method where I can pass a delegate that determines what elements to remove. IME much more robust than handwriting loops and keeping track of such things.

TList<T>.GetEnumerator does not call DoGetEnumerator but directly creates its TEnumerator - so overriding it is pointless. Considering the design in TEnumerable<T>.GetEnumerator to use the virtual DoGetEnumerator I would call this a defect that TList<T> does not stick to this pattern but has its own GetEnumerator. Anyhow why make a new list class just to enumerate stuff in reverse order?

Except when the framework is very naively written and adds a lot of unnecessary overhead and indirections. And yes, unfortunately for some situations IOUtils and other RTL units do exactly that.

Not natively using [weak] attribute. You can only make a record with a [weak] IFoo field and put that into the array.

Common is to post below on forums like this and above on newsgroups where you reply via email.

Interesting - I remember playing that game - however it probably was kinda mediocre given the fact that I totally forgot about it until I saw the screenshot which reminded me.

No, it was a logical consequence of people not only thinking up to the next fiscal quarter and realizing that not rewriting the compiler would end in a dead end rather sooner than later. That combined with a company that has enough resources to put quite some people on a project for years. But we are getting dangerously close to becoming political 😉

FastMM4 FullDebug in a debug build of our application - LeakCheck in unit and integration tests If any third party leak analysis tool claims that FastMM has a memory leak it probably will tell you the call stack of where it comes from and you will be able to find it. Also are you aware that there is RegisterExpectedMemoryLeak function that the third party tool might not be aware of and has a false positive? As for Deleaker - I think that tool and me won't become friends. UI is irritating and if its burning 100% of my CPU for minutes while triggering a million werfault.exe processes that it supresses until I press cancel to find some memory allocation leaks from that simple program I can't imagine what it will do when I let it run for a real application. "Sorry, but's a no from me"

The problem is not any 3rd party MM but the fact that some pieces in the RTL are deallocated within System.pas finalization which takes place after detaching/finalizing any 3rd party MM (if that one does something in its finalization block as posted in the previous post). And then it tries to give back memory to the system that it orginally had from the already unloaded/detached 3rd party MM. There are various fixes in the RTL (I don't remember which version they did that in) that use SysGetMem/SysFreeMem to bypass the pluggable memory manager API. It can very well be the case they missed something or you are using a version that does not have them yet.