Re: Standardisation between Win libraries
----- Original Message -----=20
From: "Dave Probert" <zingo at purpletiger.com>
To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
Subject: RE: Standardisation between Win libraries
>=20
>=20
> Phew, I guess it's more difficult than I first thought.
Like most things in life 
=20
> So, basically we're looking at many MS Windows (ignoring Linux at the=20
> moment - sorry) libraries, that each do much the same thing, but with=20
> differences (bits missed, etc). Each of them written to manage the=20
> tasks that the writer wanted to do at the time, but not complete =
enough=20
> for a wider range of tasks. Each of them sits somewhere on the =
Euphoria=20
> Path and there can, potentially, be many copies of them (Lots of =
people=20
> supply a copy of win32Lib, ewin32API, win32R, etc; along with their=20
> application) - I already have 12 copies of win32lib that came in =
various=20
> zips.
Yep, that about sums it up.
=20
> I agree with Derek on the sensibilities of not simply including ALL =
the=20
> function even if not needed. I'm not sure about the absolute need for =
> cross-platform All-In-One type of library development - shouldn't =
there=20
> be a wrapper or different set of (same name) files to be included when =
> going to another platform?
Ahhh..the perfect world concept again...hmmmm.
> A more modular and heirarchical approach to the library designs is=20
> probably what I'm trying to describe. One that would allow the base=20
> functionality to be there, but with the ability to extend it beyond =
that=20
> in various ways without touching (ie modifying) the base code. =
Nothing=20
> new there - been done before in many languages.
Yep, it sure has. The Euphoria user base is so small and uncoordinated =
(read: not-paid) that a central Eu standards body is not all that =
feasible. And RDS does not want that role either.
> The Standard Euphoria Library does seem to be dead, but it's a sound=20
> idea - especially for Windows development. Looking through many files =
I=20
> see repetition of so many functions and slight variations on functions =
> (eg. or_all() and or_all_bits() ) - that strikes me as simply a lack =
of=20
> some further core libraries which we all could benefit from.
Hear, hear! One of the first things that new Eu coders find, after =
getting over the intro stuff, is that they have to go an reinvent many =
things that are taken as normally available in other languages. How many =
copies of abs() do we really need!? RDS should be a lot more proactive =
in packaging the commonly re-invented library routines - even if it =
means that RDS takes responsiblility in maintaining them. The continual =
mess of amorphous sub-committees for "Eu Standard Library" is adding to =
the frustration.
> What are the benefits of each of the current Windows libraries anyway?
Win32lib attempts to make coding apps for MS-Windows easier and faster =
to do; trading execution speed for development speed.
> What are the differences? =20
I think that other WIN libraries either go for faster execution speeds =
and/or cross-platform functionality.
>Which Library is the most used? =20
Win32lib, of course
>What can be done to help improve (and/or merge ) the libraries=20
>(or preferably one)
Nothing, as they have different (mutually exclusive) goals to achieve.
> Still not an attack, just a discussion from a new Euphoria user who's =
a=20
> little confused, having come from the C/C++/Java/PHP/ActionScript=20
> world!! :)
And in spite of this lack of 'core' functionality, I still find myself =
liking Euphoria more and more. 'Chaos Theory' in action.
--=20
Derek
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
