Re: Windows stuff...
Tommy Carlier wrote:
> Patrick Barnes wrote:
>> To program in windows using only the standard libraries is very time
>> consuming and annoying.
>> Excellent work has been done in 3rd party projects like win32lib and
>> w32engine.
>> Some people find one or both of these restrictive, and so go off and
>> use a different system...
>>
>> This means that programmers are using different windows libraries to
>> write their own code, and to convert a library to use a different
>> windows library is difficult, if not impossible.
>>
>> What do you think about collaborating to produce a common core to
>> these windowing systems, that can be extended to produce a library
>> that caters to different needs?
>>
>> For a start, one include file should have every windows API constant,
>> and be compatible across the board. Perhaps it should be included in
>> the euphoria installer as a standard include.
>
> I agree that there is a need for a core library, but that library
> should be very limited. The API constants are necessary.
Yes, the API constants are necessary, and I actually think that they
should ship with the official Euphoria distribution. This is normal for
other languages such as C, Delphi, PowerBASIC etc. for years now.
> But I think that it would be useful, if instead of a Euphoria-library,
> these definitions (constants, functions, structures) would be available
> as a database.
I certainly don't have as much programming knowledge as you, but anyway,
I'd like to say here: KISS. I think it should be a plain include file.
It works fine e.g. for the languages mentioned above, why shouldn't it
be good for Euphoria?
> Different libraries use different functions to define structures, and
> to load DLLs and functions.
Yes, but that must not be accepted as a given prerequisite, because it's
part of the problem! And that's why it is highest time to create some
standards in this regard. When all libraries use these standards, then
this issue will dissapear. In order to 'define' a standard, it's not
necessary to write large and complicated documents.
RDS just has to include the regarding code in the official Euphoria
distribution. This will automatically be a 'de-facto standard' like it's
already with the library routines, that currently ship with Euphoria.
For instance, if there would be built-in library routines for handling
C-like structures, all those different self-written routines would
become superfluous (provided, the built-in routines are good), and
sooner or later would disappear from the "market".
So the various different approaches, and different libraries are a
direct consequence of the lack of a standard in that regard. And (at
least currently, since OpenEU isn't available yet) no one else than RDS
can introduce an Euphoria standard, that will be accepted and used by
many people.
When there are suggestions for improvement to Euphoria, Rob often writes
something like: You can do it yourself. While it's true, this is not the
point. Of course, we can write this or that code snippet ourselfes, but
we can't define standards ourselfes. That's actually up to RDS.
> If the API definitions are available as a
> database, anyone could generate Euphoria-code from it.
Sorry, but I actually can't hear this "Anyone can do it her/himself."
argument anymore. 'Standardization' is the name of the game. 
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
