OpenEuphoria

2. RE: TVDemo!

• Posted by Matthew Lewis <matthewwalkerlewis at YAHOO.COM> Dec 13, 2001
• 438 views

euman at bellsouth.net wrote:

> 1. Can you currently write the app I produced using Win32lib?

Yes.

>      * and it be smaller in code

In total code (including all libraries) the answer is, of course, no.  
But how small do things need to be?  I'm not interested in coding for 
embedded processors, so I don't need to make my apps microscopic.  If I 
add 100-200K to the total size of an exe by using tools like win32lib, 
then for my use, the code is small enough.

>      * faster in executing

I suspect it would be slightly slower, but probably not to the extent 
that a human would notice using the program.

>      * easier to read

I think so.  But then, this gets really subjective and down to 
individual coding styles.

> Im running this on Win98 and it doesnt crash with me.

The exe worked fine on Win2K.

> I can fix this and make the program much smaller IRV believe me 
> (the code and the .exe)

OK.  Is this important?  If the exe were 10 times the size (perhaps the 
size of a similar compiled win32lib app), the effective footprint on 
most systems would be the same.


> I have control over the code is my point, I dont have to rely on 
> Derek or Matt all of the time for tips,
> tricks or fixes....anyone who is frustrated that Win32lib isnt 
> progressing fast enough should probably start reading because in 
> the time it takes to read the SDK, learn API and
> program something like what I sent in they will have surpassed 
> Win32lib capabilties.

Once again I have to disagree.  It might be possible to do one or two 
controls better (ie, listview or treeview), but there's no way you could 
do the range of things in win32lib.  If I were really frustrated about 
the performance of some aspect of an app, I'd probably still use 
win32lib for most things, and do that one thing separately.  
Unfortunately, there are just too many things to deal with in windows to 
have everyone keep rebuilding the wheel.  This is how we end up with 
things like MFC (or win32lib).  I've said several times that I'd be 
really interested in some lib that could do better than win32lib, but 
haven't seen anything yet that allows me to do as many things as easily.


> > Thanks for posting that. It clearly proves why people would want to use
> > Win32lib, or Delphi, or some such package that abstracts the tedious
> > Windows API.
> 
> Who do you think writes the abstractions to eliminate the tedium?

A few people.

> I've used win32lib in the past but I became frustrated about bugs 
> and the amount of code it contains, the speed and just about every 
> aspect of the library. I drained it, stretched it to it's limits 
> but it just wasnt then and never will be enough!

Here's my take on this.  There have been several libs that have done 
things in ways that the authors have touted as faster than win32lib.  I 
don't doubt the claims (I've never tested them myself).  However, most 
of these don't do such a good job of hiding the ugliness of the win32 
API.  Bernie's lib, for instance, is very interesting, and could be 
extremely useful to anyone either learning the way C does things, or 
already comfortable with them.  Your code has a similar flavor.  But 
many are here to avoid C, which is where win32lib steps in.  

Rob's said many times that someone merely interested in speed of 
execution should go write C or ASM.  Personally, I'm interested in a 
balance of fast and easy code, which is why I like Eu.  I haven't had 
any real speed issues with win32lib, so IMHO, it's also a nice balance 
between fast [enough] and easy.

Matt Lewis