Now that IUP is deemed viable, is it time to discuss the challenges?

new topic     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message

The following questions cut from e-mail still go unanswered. These questions go beyond the GUI toolkit and lean more towards how a solution affects OpenEuphoria.

Looking at the 3 most successful projects with this same goal, how did they solve the problem? Java, Mono, Lazarus?

BTW, Mono actually publicly discussed what they tried and how they landed on their decision.

e-mail said...

We really should start discussing how we are going implement a cross platform solution. Here are 4 ideas. If you have others, lets get them on the table so we can collectively evaluate them. As we evaluate possibilities, we should keep in mind ARM, OSX, and Windows.

How to make sure that the official toolkit and IDE will work on each platform it's is installed on? Options include:

  1. Statically link: works great for interpreter but not so good for compiler. Though this is probably the easiest to distribute across platforms.
  2. Binary distribute. Still not so bad but then the question of where to put the libs come into play. /usr/lib? /usr/local/lib? /usr/lib64? /.local/lib? IDK on OS X? System32 on Windows? Does this mean we need to create/maintain several different installers?
  3. Binary distribute option 2 - Go against the grain and install libs/dlls relative to eui. Then open_dll could also be to modified to look for dlls in a location relative to eui. (I like this option a lot)
  4. Source. OK, but what about pre-requisites? Like `make` for example. Probably a huge problem for Windows.

Also, another question that comes up is do we have a primary concern between interpreted and compiled user programs? Or are both concerns equal? If I had to choose, interpreted would be my primary concern.


new topic     » topic index » view thread      » older message » newer message


Quick Links

User menu

Not signed in.

Misc Menu