1. Re[2]: Coming real soon!
- Posted by vekem at gmx.de
Jul 21, 2001
Freaks,
looking at an older version of Bernie's library (V 2.0, August 1999)
gives this: It's similar to those include files like the base files
in C (or other procedural languages, PowerBASIC for Windows etc.),
ans *this means*: it is the necessary base for programming under
Windows!
Win32lib is very, very good, but it has no interface to extend it in
an easy way. Has anybody tried to use it with other custom controls?
This would be a hard job. So again: such thing is a well done
(respect David & Co!) job, but it also includes (talking about the
forward coming of Euphoria) a restriction, because adding (own,
needed) features to such a library is hard to doing.
Windows librarys for Euphoria should all base on such a standard
include like Bernie's. On this, a win32lib (or what ever) should "sit
on" it. This is no lack. This forces consistency.
Go on Bernie!
Markus
afdhdddhdddd
2. Re[2]: Coming real soon!
Fritz,
>Sure, but i was talking about the real world, i.e. not freaks who
>love programming problems,
I'm asking myself: Is a programming language good because the "real
world" knows it like VisualBASIC & Co or it is good, because it is
powerful like Euphoria (on three platforms)?
>but people who want :
>
>a) have their proplems solved as easily and quickly as possible;
This is possible with the help of many free libraries or taking own
low-level control. You can choise it in your way.
>b) wants the assurance of uninterupted support
My opinion: better to have contact to same Euphoria programmers in
the forum and RDS/Robert Craig himself than having much (support)
costs in the real world. 
(Should the support write our programs?
- what a great archive on the RDS webside!)
>c) continuity.
Do you have a lack with Euphoria? Do you need or want commercial
libraries? What makes continuity save?
Good programming!
Markus
Markus Vedder-Kemnitzer
vekem at gmx.de
3. Re[2]: Coming real soon!
francis at gmx.co.uk schrieb am 22.07.2001:
>What Euphoria needs is a base API library, from which every other
>windows library is built apon.
That's it!
>...But how about a bit of creative engineering? With a Win32 base
>library covering (hopefully the entire) API, Win32Lib could just
>include this before declaring its own routines for (in my opinion)
>superior engineered code.
Unfortunately this is so.
>Does everyone who wants to step ahead into the more complex
>and faster waters beyond Win32lib have to spend hours upon hours
>manually creating the masterpiece of API definition?
Nobody should do this
>Still, besides how far off the point this thread is going to be
>argued, who can criticise Bernie here for what he's doing? Who can
>possibly argue that Euphoria(Win32) does not need this library?
>Hello?
Not me ... and I'm really impatient waiting on Bernie's library ))
>I fullheartedly support Bernie with this brave endeavour. If
>completed I will definitely be "including" it in my code.
Me too.
>I believe
>it is a positive step forward to simplify the first aspect of low
>level (or any level-library) programming for Euphoria.
I agree and I think it's a way to make Windows programming with
Euphoria much better and forces then also other high-level libraries
using such a base include.
Markus
Markus Vedder-Kemnitzer
vekem at gmx.de
