1. Re: VisualBasic Look-a-like
Tapu wrote:
> But what I'd like to know, are the benefits
> between llama and win32lib.
The main goal of Llama is cross-platform portability. This means that Llama
applications should work the same under Win32, Linux, Dos32, and perhaps
other environments, such as BeOS and Macintosh. At this point, however, it
only runs under Win32.
The *real* difference between Win32Lib and Llama is ultimately I hope to
make all the controls in Llama emulated. That's going to take a bit of
doing, but I see no reason why it shouldn't work. I'm heavily influenced by
the Qt toolkit, which uses the same methods to achieve portability between
Win32 and Linux.
Until emulation is complete, I expect Llama to be a mix of emulated and
native controls.
> Have you (David) been working with win32lib anymore
> or have you been fully concentrating to llama?
Win32Lib still gets occasional updates. For example, I've added better
graphic support (sprites, BitBlt) in the last month or so. I've considered
adding printing as well. Until Llama is released in what I consider a solid
version, I don't consider Win32Lib a dead library.
On the other hand, I should mention that I am focusing most of my attention
to Llama, and working very hard to make Win32Lib obsolete. It hasn't reached
that point yet, and as much as I'd like to, I can't guarantee that it will
until I get to that point. I've been burned too many times on prior
projects.
> What I understood from your llama docs is that
> llama is much easier to use than win32lib.
At this point, the Llama API is virtually the same as Win32Lib's, and will
probably remain fairly close into the near future. So it's fairly easy to
port code from Win32Lib to Llama.
> If you could add those menus in the llama I might
> do my Editor by using it.
I'd suggest using Win32Lib instead. At this point, my version of Llama is so
unstable, it's not even funny.
-- David Cuny
