1. TVDemo!
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Dec 12, 2001
Hello all,
I sent Robert my Drive/Directory Treeview Demo tonight but I wanted to add
something to the license
and do this publicly.
You may use the code if you follow the license found in TVDemo.exw and
TVDnotes.txt
with the addition of this one request. You do not SHROUD the code and use it in
any program
that may end up being posted on the Euphoria User Contributions page.
Thanks,
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
2. Re: TVDemo!
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Dec 13, 2001
On Wednesday 12 December 2001 10:48 pm, Euman wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I sent Robert my Drive/Directory Treeview Demo tonight but I wanted to add
> something to the license and do this publicly.
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.
Around 840 lines of code, not counting comments, for what is basically one
window with a treeview. Now, consider that most programs I write may need
20 ~ 40 windows, each with different controls and options, I guess we'd be
talking 30 ~ 40,000 lines of code. Maybe more. Not for me, thanks.
There's also this minor point: your program immediately crashes on Win 98,
with Windows' ever-so-useful error message:
"The instruction at bfedbbb1 referenced memory at 10012edb.
The memory could not be read from."
That's if you run the exw. Running the compiled exe just crashes without the
"useful" error diagnostic :(
Now, if this were my program, I would be faced with the task of tracking down
the error. Since the code is full of user-written, and therefore not very
well-tested, peeks and pokes, that wouldn't be easy. Imagine getting that
error report, (such as it is) from a customer, and having to track down the
error. With no ex.err to help. Talk about headaches!
If anyone is interested in writing really small, really fast Windows
programs, see:http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm
Steve Gibson's assembly (yep, assembly) code is fairly easy to understand,
and creates tiny programs.
Regards,
Irv
3. Re: TVDemo!
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Dec 13, 2001
Use what you want to IRV and I'll use something better than Win32lib.
1. Can you currently write the app I produced using Win32lib?
* and it be smaller in code
* faster in executing
* easier to read
Hell No!
Im running this on Win98 and it doesnt crash with me.
I didnt test this extensively, I put it together in 20 minutes what do you
expect?
I did do this rather fast so there are some obvious errors in the code.
I did find lastnight after I sent the program in to Rob two instances where
atoms were
declared when they should be sequences. The point being I did this in 20
minutes.
Sure most of the code already existed in my arsinal so I just cut and pasted the
code.
I can fix this and make the program much smaller IRV believe me (the code and
the .exe)
consider this, when I use something like (below routine) I can create Windows or
Controls with one line of code
Just like Win32lib, Just like Delphi or even MASM32 which is my prefered ASM,
BTW!
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.
global function CreateWindow(atom dwExStyle, object ClassName, object
WindowName, atom dwStyle,
integer x, integer y, integer Width, integer
Height, atom Parent, atom Mnu,
atom Instance, integer void)
atom classname, windowname, id
if atom(ClassName) then
classname = ClassName
else
classname = allocate_string(ClassName)
end if
if atom(WindowName) then
windowname = WindowName
else
windowname = allocate_string(WindowName)
end if
id =
c_func(xCreateWindow,{dwExStyle,classname,windowname,dwStyle,x,y,Width,Height,Parent,Mnu,Instance,void})
free(classname)
free(windowname)
return id
end function
I'll fix the program today when I have time... and add some error checking
> 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? ? ?
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!
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
----- Original Message -----
From: <irvm at ellijay.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 8:47 AM
Subject: Re: TVDemo!
>
> On Wednesday 12 December 2001 10:48 pm, Euman wrote:
> >
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I sent Robert my Drive/Directory Treeview Demo tonight but I wanted to add
> > something to the license and do this publicly.
>
> 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.
>
> Around 840 lines of code, not counting comments, for what is basically one
> window with a treeview. Now, consider that most programs I write may need
> 20 ~ 40 windows, each with different controls and options, I guess we'd be
> talking 30 ~ 40,000 lines of code. Maybe more. Not for me, thanks.
>
> There's also this minor point: your program immediately crashes on Win 98,
> with Windows' ever-so-useful error message:
>
> "The instruction at bfedbbb1 referenced memory at 10012edb.
> The memory could not be read from."
>
> That's if you run the exw. Running the compiled exe just crashes without the
> "useful" error diagnostic :(
>
> Now, if this were my program, I would be faced with the task of tracking down
> the error. Since the code is full of user-written, and therefore not very
> well-tested, peeks and pokes, that wouldn't be easy. Imagine getting that
> error report, (such as it is) from a customer, and having to track down the
> error. With no ex.err to help. Talk about headaches!
>
> If anyone is interested in writing really small, really fast Windows
> programs, see:http://grc.com/smgassembly.htm
> Steve Gibson's assembly (yep, assembly) code is fairly easy to understand,
> and creates tiny programs.
>
> Regards,
> Irv
>
>
>
>
4. Re: TVDemo!
Irv wrote:
> Since the code is full of user-written, and therefore not very
> well-tested,
It's a good thing none of *my* code is user-written... 
-- David Cuny
5. Re: TVDemo!
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Dec 13, 2001
Yeah I guess in Irv's part of the world Perfect code just falls
from the sky...does it Irv?
Euman
From: "David Cuny" <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
> Irv wrote:
>
> > Since the code is full of user-written, and therefore not very
> > well-tested,
>
> It's a good thing none of *my* code is user-written...
>
> -- David Cuny
6. Re: TVDemo!
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Dec 13, 2001
Hello all,
If anyone experiences problem with my Treeview demo let me know
but first I have to say that I have fixed two mistakes I created.
Also, people who have comctl32.dll version 4.70 or lower will be unable
to successfully run the demo. I have now coded in the procedures to detect
your version and provide an appropriate message.
I dont suspect that Rob will update the user-contrib page again until Sunday
night
so the fix should be available by then.
I have not run into any problem myself when running the demo and I plan on
adding some very interesting things to the update. I plan to spend a few hours
this weekend and add a listview to show the files in each directory.
Maybe this will turn out to be a Explorer clone of sorts, who knows!
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
7. Re: TVDemo!
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Dec 13, 2001
It was just a joke Brian!
You mean to tell me your serious all the time?
that no-ne makes you laugh?
that no-one inspires you?
that no-one admires you?
enough to mess with you in the way Ive picked and poked at Irv
and Derek and Matt and You!
Euman
From: "Brian Broker" <bkb at cnw.com>
> Why all of the attitude here lately?
>
> If you didn't want negative feedback on your contribution then perhaps
> you should have spend more than 20 minutes on it... I don't feel that
> Irv's comments deserve such a sarcastic reply and it certainly doesn't
> need to be sent to the list.
>
> -- Brian
>
> euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
> > Yeah I guess in Irv's part of the world Perfect code just falls
> > from the sky...does it Irv?
> >
> > Euman
> >
> > From: "David Cuny" <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
> >
> >
> > > Irv wrote:
> > >
> > > > Since the code is full of user-written, and therefore not very
> > > > well-tested,
> > >
> > > It's a good thing none of *my* code is user-written...
> > >
> > > -- David Cuny
8. Re: TVDemo!
- Posted by euman at bellsouth.net
Dec 13, 2001
> euman at bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > 1. Can you currently write the app I produced using Win32lib?
>
> Yes.
I know you can Matt but it isnt wrapped yet is what I was saying.
>
> > * 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.
If you plan to carry things around on a floppy but thats old school isnt it..
so your right.
>
> > * faster in executing
>
> I suspect it would be slightly slower, but probably not to the extent
> that a human would notice using the program.
I test everything on a 486 and there is a huge difference.
You'll need my dir( ) code from this project or write a better one because when
translated to C for
Borland or LCC there seems to be a bug that euphoria's dir( ) has.
>
> > * easier to read
>
> I think so. But then, this gets really subjective and down to
> individual coding styles.
You've been keeping up with both ends Matt, API and the extra added bonus of
Win32lib
syntax....for this I admire you for your talents.
>
> > Im running this on Win98 and it doesnt crash with me.
>
> The exe worked fine on Win2K.
Cool, seems to work on everyones machine except for Irv's
>
> > 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.
The foot print in memory maybe but not for disk space certainly.
>
>
> > 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.
I cant stand MFC either, been there tried that freakin mess. I dont like OWL
or ActiveX or COM. I guess I see avenues to write programs using what all of
these
derive themselves from in the first place, API. Sort of like how Robert designed
Euphoria
SMALL, FAST and EASY!
> > > 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.
In Euphoria, a VERY FEW!
You know about how long Ive been attempting "teaching myself" API
Not long, 2yrs now maybe? The reason I started doing this was to be
able to contribute to Win32lib and I will eventually.
> > 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
9. Re: TVDemo!
- Posted by irvm at ellijay.com
Dec 13, 2001
On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:27 am, you wrote:
>
> Yeah I guess in Irv's part of the world Perfect code just falls
> from the sky...does it Irv?
You know very well that 200 people testing your code are going to find
more bugs than 1 person, especially if that one person is the coder
him/herself. Dave's Win32lib code was, and continues to be, tested
by everybody who uses Win32lib. In my part of the world, several
hundred is more than one.
Regards,
Irv
> Euman
>
> From: "David Cuny" <dcuny at LANSET.COM>
>
> > Irv wrote:
> > > Since the code is full of user-written, and therefore not very
> > > well-tested,
> >
> > It's a good thing none of *my* code is user-written...
> >
> > -- David Cuny
10. Re: TVDemo!
----- Original Message -----
From: <irvm at ellijay.com>
> On Thursday 13 December 2001 11:27 am, you wrote:
> >
> > Yeah I guess in Irv's part of the world Perfect code just falls
> > from the sky...does it Irv?
>
> You know very well that 200 people testing your code are going to find
> more bugs than 1 person, especially if that one person is the coder
> him/herself. Dave's Win32lib code was, and continues to be, tested
> by everybody who uses Win32lib. In my part of the world, several
> hundred is more than one.
>
> Regards,
> Irv
Thanks for testing it out on your machine Irv! Sorry it crashes on you!
Even still, Win32lib has more bugs than the code I sent in has.
How long would it take 200 people to weed all the bugs out of the snippet of
code
I sent in? Not long, right?
What if I were to tell you that this code would eventually be included in
Win32lib.
Wouldnt it make since for a team to write things like this and have people test
it and then
put it in a library for others to use knowing that there arent any bugs?
Maybe a new idea has sprang to life!
Very Constructive, I think..what about you?
Euman
euman at bellsouth.net
11. Re: TVDemo!
On Thursday 13 December 2001 10:18 am, Euman wrote:
>
> Use what you want to IRV and I'll use something better than Win32lib.
Don't worry - I shall.
> 1. Can you currently write the app I produced using Win32lib?
> * and it be smaller in code
Yes, and yes.
> * faster in executing
If I wanted fast I wouldn't be using Windows, would I?
> * easier to read
Absolutely!
> Hell No!
>
> Im running this on Win98 and it doesnt crash with me.
Quick, call Bill Gates!... there's probably some kind of reward.
> I didnt test this extensively, I put it together in 20 minutes what do you
> expect?
If you wrote 880 lines of code in 20 minutes, there are bound to be some
typos. But then you're wasting your time writing programs - that's talent
better spent churning out lurid prose. At that rate, you could write 10 or
12 paperback novels every week, and become rich beyond your wildest
dreams. (And typos hardly matter)
> I did do this rather fast so there are some obvious errors in the code.
> I did find lastnight after I sent the program in to Rob two instances where
> atoms were declared when they should be sequences. The point being I did
> this in 20 minutes. Sure most of the code already existed in my arsinal so
> I just cut and pasted the code.
>
> I can fix this and make the program much smaller IRV believe me (the code
> and the .exe)
>
> consider this, when I use something like (below routine) I can create
> Windows or Controls with one line of code Just like Win32lib, Just like
> Delphi or even MASM32 which is my prefered ASM, BTW!
>
> 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.
I sort of agree with you here, Win32Lib has stagnated for a long time
now. Perhaps that's for the best, however, because if there had been
frequent updates, Judith would have had a much harder time creating the IDE.
<snip code>
f> > 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? ? ?
Not me. I would much rather buy a well debugged library and spend
my time doing what I am paid to do - creating software to solve
business-related problems - not debugging software tools I've hacked together
myself. It's nice that you can build these tools for yourself -
congratulations. Think about this, though: If you hired a carpenter,
would you be: A. Pleased, or: B. Upset, if he spent most of the first
day searching for iron ore, so he could forge himself a saw?
> 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!
You may be right. Whoever comes up with an easy-to-use and debugged
library should sell it. I'll buy a copy. I'm probably not the only one.
Until that happens, I'll just keep using what works, even if it is slow or
is missing features or has bugs.
For what it's worth - I could easily justify spending between $50 and $100
for Judith's IDE. Win32Lib would be worth a similar amount, except that as
it stands I have to search around for various patches to apply to even the
"current" version before some of the controls will work properly. It seems
that some of these patches get onto the mailing list, but never turn up in
Win32Lib. It's pretty frustrating, having to maintain my own 'custom'
version. Still, a saw with a few missing teeth works better than a pile
of iron-bearing rocks.
Regards,
Irv
