Hey Edward, Well props to you for taking this on. Perhaps I will learn a little C++ one day, but as far as I've heard, programmers must be far more disciplined than we humble scripters.
I'm just reaching back to possibly revisit a bit of GUI stuff, using Tk from perl. Plain graphics, but code is well-beaten-upon and rugged. A lot of developers will code an app in Python, and then rewrite in C or C++ those hot routines that matter. But a change in language wouldin't free you from the objects which belong to your chosen graphic toolkit and their peculiar logic. I looked at Wx for a while, but way more code than Tk, and what does it give me? Mainly just looks. Have fun! Joel On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:41:47AM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote: > Hi, > > I am using 'Object Model' in this sense: > The way object's data and functions are accessed which tghitly depends > on how objects are designed, i.e. their architecture. By the latter I > am NOT referring to object hierarchy. > > Having used in the past for several years other object models in > Delphi (TM) and Lazarus (free/open), is making me realise that the > object model employed in Delphi and Lazarus are far more logical and > productive. > > I have been struggling to embrace Gtk+ and Qt object models in vain > due to their counter-intuitive object models. Instead of using real > tangible objects as a model they adopted to use an unnatural broken > model for their widget architecture. So, to start my car, I need to > create a starter object, plug it in into my car's engine, initialise > its circuitry, and finally, if my car should start! This is also like > having a detacheable digestive system, which one would plug in when > one needs to digest food! > > Why not integrate all objects required by a widget in the first place? > I can see an answer to this: to save memory space and processing > resources so object can be trimmed to what is necessary. That is a > good reason, but shouldn't a good widget designer create > not-often-used objects when an attempt to use them is made. You may > say that causes an access violation/segmentation fault. However, that > can be avoided easily. > > Why shouldn't a Gtk+ coder be able to use something like this: > gtkobjectinstance->helper-object->method() > > And > > gtkobjectinstance->helper-object->property = newpropertyvalue; > > ? > > I am perplexed, but it seems logic is not uniform. > > Edward > _______________________________________________ > Dng mailing list > Dng@lists.dyne.org > https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng -- Joel Roth _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
