Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 37656 views
Any particular reason why other, non-Euphorian users of wxWidgets should be excluded from these benefits?
wxEuphoria is a wrapper on wxWidgets. Wrappers make things easier for the "foreign" language to be understood by the users of the "native" language.
Agreed. To this extend, wxEuphoria is a very thin wrapper.
There was never any intention to doubt the validity of the approach of wxWidgets.
Since wxEuphoria is a very thin wrapper, it should be identical to wxWidgets in the manner of the approach (or more explicitly, the use of name choice, the style of names, the style of classes, etc.).
Although you have not said that you explicitly doubt the validity of the approach of wxEuphoria, the fact that you believe these changes to be useful only to wxEuphoria and not to wxWidgets implies it.
So, why do you doubt the validity of the approach for wxEuphoria, when you feel that the same one works for wxWidgets?
this group's native language
What does that mean?
There was every intention on my part to make it easier to express the thoughts of that "foreign" language using Euphoria, and hopefully make Windows programming easier using wxEuphoria. That it would be easier, is my personal opinion
Either the approach of wxWidgets is itself against the philosophy of Euphoria (I don't believe this is true) and therefore the simple "thin wrapper" style is inappropriate for Euphoria programming (I don't buy this at all), or the language behind wxWidgets is so different to the point that the concepts used by wxWidgets can't be expressed in Euphoria (but the existence of the current form of wxEuphoria shows that this is clearly false).
The approach of wxWidgets is almost perfectly expressed by wxEuphoria (with a small caveat that Matt had previously mentioned here), and your demonstration suggests a significant change to it.
Useful? Easier? Better? For the sake of argument I'll accept all these. Just keep in mind that your recommendation, rather than being an attempt to better express the C format of wxWidgets in Euphoria, is actually a move away from the current form of wxWidgets to make wxEuphoria less similiar to it.
Of course, these changes can be directly applied to wxWidgets itself, or a fork of it. There is nothing in them that suggests that an interested party would be unable to do this.
You also state that you want to make programming easier. Yet, as Matt pointed out, all of the benefits you stated seemed to depend on a special IDE that is not publicly available. Even though I'd expressed skeptcism in the past that even this IDE would benefit, let us again assume for the sake of argument that this is true.
How's it make programming easier for the rest of us?
You are asking Matt (or anyone else who may want to follow up on and expand this idea) to redo the entire thing from scratch. Might as well ask him to re-invent the wheel.
I am NOT asking Matt to do anything. I am bringing before him a way of wrapping to reduce the number of functions, which HE can decide whether or not to use. The demo and the effort of the sudents was an exercise and far from perfect. To do it properly, one has to sit down and decide on certain ruls (such as using the same integer value for substiting say "Bold")
Why only Matt? It's possible that someone else might come along and like your approach and make a new fork of wxEuphoria based on it.
Except that they can't. They'd have to start from scratch (well, from the current version of wxEuphoria) and do all the legwork from there.
Let's assume Matt did make the decision to use this. He'd also have to do all the heavy lifting himself.
You bring a new idea, and claim that the code to prove that it works has already been written, but essentially require that anyone else who agrees and wants to give it a try has to reinvent the wheel. You may not be literally asking anyone to do that, but it seems that the wheel has to be reinvented, regardless.
