1. exw
exw: Holy Grail found, programming panacea, or a big yawn at the start
of a newly erupting silly season?
246 lines of incomprehensible garbage (unless, of course, you are
willing to wade through 20 mb of Big Bill's wisdom) just to declare "A
Plain Vanilla Window using Euphoria!" ? Jiri
2. Re: exw
On Mon, 10 Nov 1997, BABOR, JIRI wrote:
> exw: Holy Grail found, programming panacea, or a big yawn at the start
> of a newly erupting silly season?
>
> 246 lines of incomprehensible garbage (unless, of course, you are
> willing to wade through 20 mb of Big Bill's wisdom) just to declare "A
> Plain Vanilla Window using Euphoria!" ? Jiri
>
OINK!OINK!OINK!OINK!
3. Re: exw
At 10:41 AM 11/10/97 +1200, you wrote:
>exw: Holy Grail found, programming panacea, or a big yawn at the start
>of a newly erupting silly season?
>
>246 lines of incomprehensible garbage (unless, of course, you are
>willing to wade through 20 mb of Big Bill's wisdom) just to declare "A
>Plain Vanilla Window using Euphoria!" ? Jiri
>
>
Beats me :) I haven't seen *any* language that allowed you to do
Windows
programming w/out all that 'incomprehensible garbage', except for Liberty
Basic (which has the drawbacks of being the slowest thing I've ever seen,
quite buggy, and doesn't support user-defined functions).
-----------------------------------
Craig Gilbert
cgilbert at cennet.mc.peachnet.edu
"Positing infinity, the rest is easy."
-- Roger Zelazny, in 'Creatures of Light and Darkness'
-----------------------------------
4. Re: exw
- Posted by Irv Mullins <mountains at MINDSPRING.COM>
Nov 09, 1997
-
Last edited Nov 10, 1997
BABOR, JIRI wrote:
>
> exw: Holy Grail found, programming panacea, or a big yawn at the start
> of a newly erupting silly season?
>
> 246 lines of incomprehensible garbage (unless, of course, you are
> willing to wade through 20 mb of Big Bill's wisdom) just to declare "A
> Plain Vanilla Window using Euphoria!" ? Jiri
The'yre all the same (except for Delphi, which is totally visual, point and
click, extremely fast, and the code looks kinda like Euphoria -- procedures,
functions and all)
Tha't windoz for you...
Anyone for unix?
Irv
5. Re: exw
- Posted by Cameron Kaiser <spectre at WWW2.BUOY.COM>
Nov 09, 1997
-
Last edited Nov 10, 1997
> Beats me :) I haven't seen *any* language that allowed you to do Wind
ows
> programming w/out all that 'incomprehensible garbage', except for Liberty
> Basic (which has the drawbacks of being the slowest thing I've ever seen,
> quite buggy, and doesn't support user-defined functions).
>
I agree with Craig. There is no nice way to make Win apps, which makes me
question the sanity of Win programmers. EuWin does it probably the best
of any of them. Liberty Basic is too inflexible to be worth anything, and
Visual*.* makes bloated Godzilla-style applications (except VC, which exchanges
incomprehensibility for large object file size).
--
Cameron Kaiser
http://www.sserv.com/
spectre at sserv.com
--
6. Re: exw
- Posted by Tom Dison <tommyrev at MTCO.COM>
Nov 09, 1997
-
Last edited Nov 10, 1997
>I agree with Craig. There is no nice way to make Win apps, which makes me
>question the sanity of Win programmers. EuWin does it probably the best
>of any of them. Liberty Basic is too inflexible to be worth anything, and
>Visual*.* makes bloated Godzilla-style applications (except VC, which
exchanges
>incomprehensibility for large object file size).
Delphi is fairly simple, fast, and it makes fairly small execuatables. I'll
stick to Euphoria for learning Dos game programming, but not for graphical
WinApps(until those WinGui tools show up...)
7. Re: exw
------ =_NextPart_000_01BCEDDD.07D842E0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Much of what was in the demo window program is usually included handled =
in C by the line:
#include win.h
The rest of it is very close to the original C code. But there is no =
doubt that it's a painful new world.=20
Many of the ugly details of the Win32 environment can be shielded from =
the user. For example, in Win32 it is necessary to be able to completely =
redraw your window at any point in time (say, in response to the user =
resizing the window). This is a concept that is foreign to DOS =
programmers, who are used to text remaining on the screen once they have =
written it.
But it's not that difficult to hide that - just queue up all the pending =
display information in a pendingPrint queue, and the displayed =
information in a printedPrint queue. Something like:
procedure win_print( sequence s )
-- place text in queue for display, and trigger an ON_PAINT to =
handle it
-- place the text in the pending queue
pendingPrint =3D append( pendingPrint, { PRINT, xCol, yCol, color, =
s } )
-- force a repainting
message( self, ON_PAINT )
end procedure
and in the event loop:
elsif compare( msg, ON_PAINT ) =3D 0 then
-- get context, handle
getContext... =20
-- display the pending stuff
for i =3D 1 to length( pendingPrint ) do
-- don't display twice...
if not redisplayAll then
-- real display routine
win_puts( pendingPrint[i] )
end if
-- save in case entire window needs a redisplay
printedPrint =3D append( printedPrint, pendingPrint[i] )
end for
=20
-- clear pending array
pendingPrint =3D {}
-- redisplay entire window?
if redisplayAll then
for i =3D 1 to length( printedPrint ) do
win_puts( printedPrint[i] )
end for
end if
-- clear flag
redisplayAll =3D 0
-- release handle
releaseContext( ...
In my mind, it's very feasible to create a "generic" environment that =
would allow coders to write Win32 applications without being subjected =
to the complexities of the Win32 environment. After all, environments =
like VisualBasic do it.
I hope to be working on wrappers so you can declare stuff like:
-- create a new button
constant button1 new_button( "Press Me", 10, 20, 40, 100 )
-- create an action for the button
global procedure onClick_button1()
message_box( "Ow!", "That hurt!" )
end procedure
-- vector the action
action[button1][ON_CLICK] =3D routine_id( "onClick_button1" )
The event loop would then be driven by the data structures, and =
completely transparent to the user.
From there, it's not that great of a leap to imagine a Visual Euphoria =
environment. But it'll be a lot of hard work to make it easy for other =
programmers.
-- David Cuny
------ =_NextPart_000_01BCEDDD.07D842E0
8. Re: exw
- Posted by Daniel Berstein <danielberstein at USA.NET>
Nov 10, 1997
-
Last edited Nov 11, 1997
On 10 Nov 97 , BABOR, JIRI wrote:
> exw: Holy Grail found, programming panacea, or a big yawn at the
> start of a newly erupting silly season?
Well, I'm on the same mood that Jacques....
I think that soon we'll have wrapper and tutorials to help us use the
powerful Win32 API's... maybe game programmers won't find it useful
but for more 'serious' aplication programmers the posibility to have Win 95
programs is great!
I haven't got time to look extensibly to the demos and docs, nut I
think that most of the windows initialization can eventually be
standarizded and made a .e file. And I can bet that RDS, with
version 2.0 final, will release handy tools/includes/documents that
will help us a bit.
To Jaques: it's great to have you around... you're kind of a living
encyclopedia ;)
Regards,
Daniel Berstein
danielberstein at usa.net
http://www27.pair.com/daber/architek
9. exw
does Euphoria 2.0 have controls and stuff, or is it pretty much the same
as 1.4a?
___________________________
When it comes to programming languages, Euphoria is a cut above -
matt1278 at juno.com and matt1421 at juno.com(and soon to be
irisnmatt at prodigy.net. Then again, maybe not) Euphoria programmer
Web users: <A HREF=mailto:"matt1421 at juno.com">matt1421 at juno.com</A> or <A
