1. Re: GUIs
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD5F1E.8B9CAB40
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Irv wrote:
> There is a real need for a stable, familiar user interface for =
Euphoria
I agree.
> I think a GUI should take priority over possible ports to Un*x or Mac.
But if RDS is serious about porting to any other platform, the biggest =
issue to resolve *is* the user interface. What will the API calls look =
like?
> programming with the Win API is just TOO MUCH TROUBLE
With Win32Lib and other Euphoria toolkits, I think you'll find coding =
Win32 to be much easier in the near future. What worries me is (1) the =
effort to create libraries will have to be recreated for each new OS, =
and (2) there is little chance that the libraries will be compatible, =
unless we prepare for them to be.
> Wrappers (like Borland's OWL) help, but don't really ease the pain =
very much.
Win32Lib is essentially a wrapper, and I think it makes it a *lot* =
easier to put together an application.
> ...HTML interface to the Euphoria engine?
I don't think the HTML interface is powerful enough. Besides, HTML needs =
a browser to run. People want their apps to look like native Win32/X =
Windows/Mac applications.
I feel there needs to be some sort of base level API that Euphoria =
supports natively. But what that should be in that API, and how RDS =
should implement it?
If they selected a cross-platform library, they could just choose *that* =
as the base API, and be done with it. But what library to choose? Zinc =
is very complete, and equally expensive. wxWindows is free, but version =
1.6x is bloated.
Another option is use Tk. That could certainly help sell a Tk-enhanced =
version of Euphoria to the Unix folk, who Tk, and various scripting =
languages that use Tk as their API, for years.
I think that the "best" of all worlds would be for a layered API to be =
written in Euphoria using a layered architecture, similar to Zinc's. RDS =
could maintain two sets for each supported platform: a "basic" set, =
guaranteed to work on each architecture, and an "extended" set, added to =
by users.
How big is a "basic" library? My guess would be that Win32Lib is =
*almost* has most of the items you would want in. Tk might be a good =
basis for a baseline system.
The basic set could be extended as expertise became available, either by =
adding a native call to the library, or through emulation. If it was =
well designed, it would be possible to emulate quite a lot of the =
functions that were not native, such as button bars and tooltips.=20
Naturally, *everything* would be emulated in the DOS version.
This gives you the best of both worlds: a cross-platform API with an =
ensured level of compatibility, but one that doesn't lock you out from =
native API calls if you want to add them.
-- David Cuny
------ =_NextPart_000_01BD5F1E.8B9CAB40
