Re: Windows stuff...
Matt Lewis wrote:
> Juergen Luethje wrote:
>>
>> Derek Parnell wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As always, it's a good idea to start with the most basic things. For
>> MS Windows this will probably be API constants and wrappers for C-like
>> structures and function calls.
>
> For all the reasons Derek mentioned, I don't think that C-like structures
> are going to come bundled as a standard include. The only way this will
> come with Eu is if it's built in.
I would appreciate this even more. 
> <snip>
>
>> From the consumers point of view, this will be a nice situation, because
>> s/he has the choice, which Euphoria interpreter/compiler to buy.
>> Euphoria publishers of course will not *have to* supply all 3rd-party
>> constants (I never said "all" BTW), but if some publishers do so, while
>> others don't, this might influence the choice of the customers.
>> Including MS Windows API constants and wrappers for C-like structures
>> and function calls will certainly raise the value of a product.
>
> I'm not convinced that distributing such things is such a great idea.
> As I say below, having constants isn't all that valuable. The Eu docs
> currently point the new user to the most popular source of constants,
> etc. The new programmer (Euphoria seems to be the first language for
> many people) probably shouldn't be mucking about with that sort of
> thing, and the more experienced will probably be comfortable with
> downloading an additional package or thirty. These things are very
> unstable compared with Eu (several to many updates per year for the
> libraries, vs less than one per year for Eu), that anything that was
> bundled would likely be out of date when many get the language.
Agreed. AFAIK PowerBASIC for instance offers a file containing Windows
API constants and function wrappers for free download on their website,
so that it can easily be updated.
I don't think it's important that such a file (or several small files)
is actually bundled with the Euphoria interpreter. But it should follow
a standard. And this standard should take "the big picture" into account.
It could also be a user contribution, when this user(s) will follow the
standard, and will promise not to start a 12 month lasting trip around
the world next week. See what I mean?
I think some "big plan" is needed for what I'd like to see in Euphoria,
and developing such a plan as well as realizing it requires a certain
level of organization. In contrast to a company like RDS, we, the
Euphoria users, are only organized very loosely, so this is probably the
reason why we probably can't do it.
I just recalled what happened to me, when I learned to know Euphoria.
After reading almost all the docs, and running and reading many of the
demo programs, I wanted to translate some programs from Charles
Petzild's book "Programming Windows" to Euphoria. In order not to write
*anything* myself, I needed some Windows API constants, function
wrappers, and support for C-like structures. The most helpful thing that
I found in this regard was w32engin.
Then later, I wanted to write a windows program by my own, as simple as
possible. As far as I could see, EuWinGUI was the best choice. For
writing more complex programs, EuWinGUI didn't seem to be good, so I
used Win32Lib ...
What I mean is this: Win32Lib didn't simply provide the plain constants
and function wrappers when I needed them, w32engin didn't allow me to
write programs in a manner as comfortable as I wanted. EuWinGUI was
somewhere in the middle ...
(Disclaimer: Maybe what I write here is not true, but it is the way
things looked to me at that time.)
Of course just having constants isn't very valuable. But sometimes I
just need them. Sometimes I need more, and I would like it very much,
when all the different pieces fit together nicely.
That's what users of e.g. PowerBASIC or Delphi actually get AFAIK.
[snipped in agreement]
Regards,
Juergen
--
I didn't have time to write a short letter,
so I wrote a long one instead.
[Mark Twain]
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
