1. RE: Indigo on Wintel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: C. K. Lester [mailto:euphoric at cklester.com]
> Subject: Indigo on Wintel
>
>
>
> For all the analysts out there...
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1046_3-5148148.html?tag=nefd_top
>
> How is that going to affect programming in general and EUPHORIA
> programming specifically?
>
> Is their "Indigo" going to be a cross-platform (or better, platform
> generic) standard?
I have been studying the new MS programming model for a few days now and
I've been pleasently surprised at how close some aspects of it (the UI
Definitions) are to what I'm doing with Win32lib. There is almost a
one-to-one correspondance in conceptual terms. They are using an XML-like
syntax and I'm using a more concise syntax (similar to SMEL but even
smaller).
As for changing from an OO model to a Messaging model, I'm pleased because
this is what I'm planning for win32lib, and a lot of my apps tend to be like
this now anyway.
--
Derek
2. RE: Indigo on Wintel
EUPHORiCK wrote:
>
>
> Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> >As for changing from an OO model to a Messaging model, I'm pleased
> >because this is what I'm planning for win32lib, and a lot of my
> >apps tend to be like this now anyway.
> >
> >
> Thanks, Derek...
>
> It's all over my head, and I'm really only asking for curiosity's
> sake, though I wonder how much I'm going to have to learn in the
> near- to far-future... How much easier then will it be to use the
> Windows API from EUPHORIA? Or will there even be a Windows API? :)
>
I'm not sure the windows API will be that much easier. What I think
will be easier is taking advantage of non-Euphoria code (binaries).
They're billing Indigo as a replacement for COM, and that it's all
messaging and XML-ish. That sounds a lot more transparent than the way
that COM works (there's really not that much information out there on
how it works at a low level).
So it will probably be easier to, e.g., write plug-ins for IE, or
whatever.
Matt Lewis
