OpenEuphoria

Re: NO!!!!

• Posted by dcuny at LANSET.COM Feb 09, 2001
• 455 views

Chris Bensler wrote:


> How about seperating [Win32Lib] into
> seperate libs?

I've been urging Derek to wait until Robert adds namespaces to Euphoria
before restructuring the code. But it's not clear when that will happen.

> Who says I WANT to use listboxes, edit
> controls.. groups, or even buttons for
> that matter...

Structuring the library so that it's better organized seems to me an
excellent goal. Stucturing it so that you could leave out sections of the
library seems laudable. Structuring it so you can leave out individual
elements of the library - considering how interconnected they are - seems
like overkill.

Compartmentalizing each control to stand alone would result in an even
larger library, since large chunks of code would be duplicated between
controls. Trying to eliminate this with inheritance would inflict OOP onto
the library, carrying it's own overhead and additional complexity.

> 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

Adding an extra level of OOP to the library - especially considering that
Euphoria doesn't support OOP - seems unnecessary to me. There are other ways
to accomplish the same goal.

> It shouldn't include any classes..
> They should be seperate libs.. Just
> like WINDOWS..

I'm not sure what Windows you are referring to, but it's not the Win32 API
that I've come to know. The Win32 API is only loosely 'class' structured.

> I hate to say they did something right,
> but they didn't make billions for nothing..

Maybe you are thinking of the MFC? Most people who work with GUI APIs pretty
much agree that the Win32 API is a mess, compared to just about anything
else.

> 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..

Take a look at Llama for an attempt to create a 'clean' set of OOP wrappers
around the Win32 API. Since Euphoria doesn't support OOP, the implementation
isn't all that simple, after all. Much of the code is a struggle to make the
Win32 model fit the OOP model, and it's not a good fit.

> 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..

I don't see the library as being *that* terribly broken. It's certainly
large, but considering the scope of the library, I don't think that's a
valid complaint.

Even if Win32Lib were terribly broken, I think the prudent thing to do would
be to hold off and see how Robert plans on implementing namespaces.

-- David Cuny