I agree with Pritpal , Xbase++ is the most standard GUI for xbase
language in oop
The only problem is that we haven't a public documentation about
xbase++ language definition
we have also a few sample for demostrate the powerfull of this wayhat
What effort can help xhbp.lib to grow in userbase?
Harbour web site dedicate a page xbase++ compatible ans show how a
source will be recompiled in windows,linux, and mac-os without problem
an effort must go also in direction of be More ready to use for
compile xbase++ simple
hbmk2 xbase++ mode that made simple compile xbase source
hbmk2 can read xpj (project file like follow)
[PROJECT]
DEBUG = yes
OBJ_FORMAT = COFF
OMF_LINKER = BLINKER.com /QM /CODEVIEW /CVON
OPENFILES = arcawi.prg;ARCA.PRG
VERSION = 2.0
Project.xpj
[Project.xpj]
ARCAW.EXE
[ARCAW.EXE]
COMPILE = xpp
COMPILE_FLAGS = /q /n /rDclipx.lib /dAXSERV /dEURO /p
DEBUG_SAVE = yes
GUI = yes
LINKER = ALINK
LINK_FLAGS = /FORCE:MULTIPLE
RC_COMPILE = arc
RC_FLAGS = /v
OBJ_DIR = OBJ
// $START-AUTODEPEND
C:\alaska\EXP1\LIB\EXPRESS.RES
...
2009/8/20 Pritpal Bedi <bediprit...@hotmail.com>:
>
> Hi
>
>
> Alex Strickland wrote:
>>
>> Is the XBase++ approach accepted by the Harbour group as the defacto
>> standard?
>>
>
> You are replied to this question in previous message from Viktor.
>
>
>
>> I know nothing about XBase++. When we talk about Clipper we all know
>> immediately
>> to a lesser or greater degree that we are talking about the same thing. I
>> do not
>> get that feeling about XBase++.
>>
>
> You need to update yourself on Xbase++.
>
> When we talk about Clipper we know we are talking about console, not GUI.
> When we talk about GUI, we talk about FWH, HWGUI, HMG, XAILER, VXH and few
> more
> here and there, but we do not talk about Harbour. Do we ?
>
> We selected Xbase++ standards for these reasons:
>
> 1. Excellent documentation.
> 2. Well defined object modal.
> 3. Standradization of object creation, per passing the parameters and return
> values.
> 4. Close proximity with Clipper syntax.
> 5. Extremely useful MT support and usage pattern.
> 6. Large user base and ready to compile code.
>
> We opted for Qt:
>
> 1. Code once, deploy everywhere.
> 2. Very clean way of object manipulation.
> 3. excellent documentation.
> 4. Flexible licensing requirements.
> 5. Versatile features.
>
>
>
>> (Unfortunately, I also know that the Harbour group is very small, and that
>> there
>> is often little enthusiasm or response for input, I know I am guilty of it
>> -
>> busy lives I guess).
>>
>
> Yes, and this suggests that we must deploy our resources in right
> directions.
> I urge the users to be vocal on the list. It creates a sense of satisfaction
> and
> acceptance.
>
> NOTE: Xbase++ framework based on Qt has received a very little response
> till date mainly due to the fact that users are diversified to so
> many GUI's.
> Probably, it will take little more time if someone may jump in
> seriously.
> Nevertheless, my efforts will remain 100%concentrated on the
> subject.
>
> Regards
> Pritpal Bedi
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Plugins-in-hbqts-library-tp25034339p25057776.html
> Sent from the Harbour - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harbour mailing list
> Harbour@harbour-project.org
> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
>
--
Massimo Belgrano
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
