Hi Edward,

In my opinion Pascal is a little obsolete language, but it is a OOP very
similar to C++.
The work is done, chapeau!

Aitor.

On 23/08/15 12:37, Edward Bartolo <edbarx@???> wrote:
> My 'irrational' choice of C language for backend.
>
> As a coder, I lack knowledge and experience. This is plain clear from
> the code I can write, but I offered my very limited coding
> capabilities to help, notwithstanding I knew, I would have been a
> dwarf among giants.
>
> I opted out of choosing Lazarus Pascal for the backend, for the fact,
> that Lazarus Pascal is only used by a small niche of developers, and
> hence, logically, one cannot expect the frequency of security patches
> one finds in C. Nobody uses Lazarus to write a kernel or any important
> part of the OS. This means, choosing Lazarus for the backend was and
> still is a bad choice. Lazarus would have created a huge executable
> (~6MB) with many hidden function calls included for the reason that it
> is high level. This problem is not as critically experienced using C,
> at least, in this dwarf's opinion.
>
> People out there want interfaces files to be human readable. Well,
> there is a workaround that which enables one to use simple files names
> like '00001', '00002', '00003', and so on. One only needs to add
> another file, wifis.names, to add a lookup table like:
>
> 00001 "my home wifi in Malta"
> 00002 "my wifi at work"
> 00003 "wifi at cafe"
>
> This can be read by cat and still anyone wanting to manually connect
> would be able to do so. Internally, backend would not accept an
> interfaces file whose name is not according to the above. Parsing the
> above should not be a performance penalty. It is however, a coding
> challenge for someone like me with the presumption to code with
> giants.
>
>
> Edward