OpenEuphoria

RE: NO!!!!

• Posted by Chris Bensler <bensler at mailops.com> Feb 09, 2001
• 512 views

How about seperating it into seperate libs? To keep the libs specific to 
Win32Lb.. give them the extension *.w32
Just symantics, but well worth the trouble if you are able to reduce the 
size of the main lib..
Who says I WANT to use listboxes, edit controls.. groups, or even 
buttons for that matter..
Take windows for example..
There is the imminent KERNEL.DLL, then there are the extras.. CTRL.DLL, 
CTRL3D.DLL, etc.. etc..

I think the size of the main lib can be diminished to a tenth of it's 
current size if you are able to restructure it. maybe use OOP
The kernel should include the main event handlers.. and OOP processor, 
if you choose to develop your own..
It shouldn't include any classes.. They should be seperate libs.. Just 
like WINDOWS..
I hate to say they did something right, but they didn't make billions 
for nothing..

Keep in mind, this is just my thoughts, I'm definitely no expert, and I 
DO see that it would be VERY difficult.. but in the long run, it would 
be easier, as well as more convenient for everyone, if you could do it 
that way..
For win32lib coders as well as users..
The library would be much easier to expand, and probably we would see a 
lot more user contributed additions, if this were possible..
Instead of fumbling through.. what is it now 285?.. of code in one 
module.. break it up!! (and that's the compacted version!!)

If I could simply write the class module with the events, properties, 
and handlers that I would need for my class alone, I would at least try 
to do so..
As it is now.. it's certainly not possible for me to even attempt to 
change anything.. I have tried, and gave up after having to work my way 
through the maze of code that is there..
Users should never have to look at the kernel..
Just the individual class libs.. From these they could see what things 
they are able to do ,and what they aren't..

To accomplish this, win32lib would definitely need a lot of 
restructuring.. possibly even re-writing the whole thing.. but to me 
this should be priority #1..
Do you wish to continue to implement everything that people see as a 
neccessity, or to tell them that they can't have it? Would be much 
easier to tell them to code it themselves..

I wish I could help, but I'm far from proficient in Win coding, not to 
mention even very familiar with win32lib coding, let alone win32lib 
SOURCE coding..


Chris

Derek Parnell wrote:
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> I'd be more than happy to take ideas and submissions for Euphoria Coding
> Standards. I'm trying to put one together right now for use with 
> Win32lib
> but the ESL could use it too.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "sephiroth _" <euman2376 at yahoo.com>
> 
> > What have you DONE to Win32lib?!?!?! Look at that code! It looks like
> > someone shrouded...no, scrambled the code and tried to put it back
> > together!
> 
> Thank you - I tried very hard to make it obscure.
> 
> Not really. I wrote a utility (eucompress.exw) that takes any euphoria 
> file
> and tries to reduce its size by stripping comments and unrequired
> whitespace. If I can be bothered, I'll go the next step and remove
> unrequired linefeeds too. I was going to rename identifiers to smaller 
> ones
> but debugging would then be just too hard.
> 
> The real code is in win32lib_full.ew. This contains better whitespace 
> usage
> and comments and the library documentation.
> 
> > In my entire life, I have not SEEN such bad style!
> 
> Still new to programming then are you? 
> 
> > This library is incompatible with earlier versions.
> 
> So? No one promised compatibility, in fact, until v1.0 we are warning 
> people
> that there are going to be minimal attempts to be backward compatibile. 
> We
> won't try to be incompatible, but if a better way is discovered to do
> something, then it might be put in even if it will "break" existing 
> code.
> 
> -----
> cheers,
> Derek Parnell
>