OpenEuphoria

Re: Win32Lib: making a "List Table"?

• Posted by Kat <gertie at ZEBRA.NET> Feb 01, 2000
• 607 views

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian Jackson <bjackson at 2FARGON.COM>
To: <EUPHORIA at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, February 01, 2000 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: Win32Lib: making a "List Table"?


> >Everett L.(Rett) Williams
> >rett at gvtc.com
> >
> >I like the second idea much better. ActiveX is the single most virus
prone
> >item that MS has ever been able to create.
>
> I'll take issue on that one.  Ever hear of this little thing called
> a 'macro virus'?  Those are WordBasic/VisualBasic virii, not activeX.
>
> >Why would Eu want to support that.
>
> Because by supporting COM (activeX), Eu would come into the mainstream
with
> C/C++, VB, and all the other 4GL languages for the Wintel platform.  I for
> one would actually *LIKE* to be able to embed Windows Media Player within
> one of my applications.  I would like to have my users click on a SAVE
> AS .DOC button in a win32Lib app, and make MS-Word save the document for
> me. I'd like to see Dan (and everyone else) have access to grid controls.
> Heck, one of my most profitable areas of expertise is taking old DOS apps
> that were written in 1978, and rewriting them as windows apps that display
> everything inside of the Internet Explorer activeX control, so that you
can
> use the apps at work, at home, or on the road.  Why WOULDN'T Eu want to
> support that?  I personally find it very frustrating to see all these
tools
> out there for the taking, and not be able to use them...
>
> >An interface to JAVA, JINI, CORBA would make a lot more sense.
>
> I can't comment on CORBA or JINI since I'm not particularly familiar with
> them, but JAVA?!!  I understand that JAVA is basically platform-
> independent, but if you want to code in JAVA, code in JAVA - why use Eu
> to "wrap" JAVA.  Oh yeah - because it's 8 times faster.
>
> I guess the bottom line is that, like it or not, COM/activeX is a
> *standard* for the serious WIN32 programmer.  It seems to me that Eu is
> already at a cross-roads with the namespace and OOP issues, and activeX
> seems like a logical extension of that line of thinking.  I suppose that
> RDS (and the rest of the Eu community) will have to make some desicions on
> what type of language Euphoria will become in the future.  I vote for OOP
> and COM because with a little investment in learning classes, methods, and
> structures, you get a HUGE return in the number of things you can
> accomplish.  This helps keep Eu simple, but makes it extremely powerful,
> too.
>
> NOTE:
> Although my opinions on this issue are very strong and I disagree with
> Everett at every opportunity, this is *NOT* a flame.  I respect Everett's
> opinions very much, and welcome a debate on this issue, whether anyone
else
> agrees with me or not.

I have ActiveX turned off in IE5 and i don't run active desktop. Both caused
me more headaches then they are worth. Both have crashed the puter,
destroyed files, rearranged my desktop, etc.. If David can call the same
functions in win32lib that activeX calls, but in a way that won't be a
microsoft pain in the a$$ like activeX, that would be useful as a simulation
of activeX but without the problems. Just my opinion.

Kat