J. Landman Gay wrote:
> On 8/19/18 11:45 PM, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
>> Consider a Note app. At the top is a navbar that spans the width of
>> the device at 60 px tall; below is a field for the user to type in;
>> centered below that is a "Save" button.
>>
>> This is in the card script:
>>
>> on resizeStack x,y
>> set the rect of grp "Navbar" to 0,0,x,60
>> set the rect of fld "Main" to 0,the bottom of grp "Nav",x,y-100
>> set the loc of btn "Save" to (item 1 of the loc of this cd, y-40)
>> end resizeStack
>
> Yup. Would you do this for, say, 200 controls per card on 1000 unique
> cards? Toss in a handful of groups nested three deep each. (I have
> Swami's project in mind.)
Swami asked for a simple example. That was all I delivered.
Swami has not asked me to evaluate strategies for precise control of his
layouts. That would not be possible until I see how things are constructed.
Just yesterday I delivered a UI with several hundred controls on a card,
some quite deeply nested within groups. But the layout did not require
writing anywhere close to one line per object. Some was handled in
loops, others handled by simply grouping objects and placing the group.
Some don't need to be moved at all because their natural placement
relative to topleft need not change. Others were handled by
combinations of the above in reusable behaviors.
But for every option there is an edge case. It may be that his app is so
unusual as to be completely unconstructable using the methods most apps
and web sites are made with.
As we see in the other thread today on performance of arrays vs chunks,
so much depends on details, and there is rarely any one best answer for
all possible cases.
If what he has is done and working and he's happy with it, regardless of
the method use that would seem a good measure of his chosen method's
fitness for that task.
Two general observations about resizing:
- We write thousands of lines of code in our apps, for everything from
data storage to image manipulation and everything else. And for all
those thousands of lines, no one complains about any of that - except
for the only part the user directly interacts with, the UI. When we
consider the widespread availability of data binding options in other
systems, you'd think the tediousness of dealing with translating between
LiveCode Script and SQL statements, and the repetitiveness of
hand-crafting two-way bindings would be a more popular pet peeve. But
no, folks are happy to write tons of code for that. And for everything
else. We're scripters; we generally enjoy scripting. But reasons I
don't yet understand, writing the relatively small part of the code to
deliver a precise UI annoys people to the point of spending a multiple
of the time the task requires trying to find ways of avoiding the task.
- In this thread we have at least half a dozen people, including two
from the core team, all working together to explore various options for
placing one object within a resizing method chosen for its ostensible
ease of use. :)
--
Richard Gaskin
Fourth World Systems
Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
____________________________________________________________________
ambassa...@fourthworld.com http://www.FourthWorld.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
