OpenEuphoria

Re: Windows stuff...

• Posted by Tommy Carlier <tommy.carlier at telenet.be> Sep 13, 2004
• 464 views

Juergen Luethje wrote:
> 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. 

I've read your post, and you've convinced me that this should indeed be
standardized.

--
tommy online: http://users.telenet.be/tommycarlier
tommy.blog: http://tommycarlier.blogspot.com
Euphoria Message Board: http://uboard.proboards32.com