[lazarus] native Win32 Interface

[cryst]

> On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 10:36:16 -0400
> "cryst" <cryst at golden.net> wrote :
>
> >If the whole group had wxWindows at the same level that Lazarus is at
with
> >gtk then windows support, (and Mac and others as well) would already be
> >present. The wxWindows is Open source and could use a nice programming
> >environment (like Lazarus)
> >to support it.
>
> This would a MAJOR pain, as wxWindows is entirely C++, which means we
would
> be unable to link it directly with Freepascal 1.0.x, instead all routines
> would have to be flattened using C, and then linked in.

I don't see how this is different the gtk.

>This is the same
> issue being run into with QT, and very likely why no one has cared to work
> on the QT port for so long.

I wouldn't know about that.

 Also, since the LCL is itself supposed to be an
> extensive OOP GUI toolkit, basing it on top of another such toolkit makes
> for ultra-large programs.

The LCL seems to be having problems getting traction as a cross O/S toolkit.
wxWindows is there and working. We just need to interface to it. I don't
believe this means a total scrap and rebuild, but rather the low level O/S
calls go to the wxWindows wrapper functions which sort out the details
(which is done at the wxwindows compile time with conditional compiles). So
the overhead isn't anymore then we would have to go through anyways.


And really this is unnesesary, as most of the time
> it would take longer too modify existing code too work exclusively with
> wxWindows, then too wait until such time as Lazarus is already fully
> functional, and then, if someone wished too, create an interface designed
to
> use wxWindows, at which time you could hope that C++ linking would be
> supported by way of FPC 1.2.X.

My suggestion is that since Lazarus seems to be heading towards direct O/S
api interfacing anyway, why not adopt one instead of trying to code every
O/S out there.  Of course you probably have more experience in this then me,
as I'm a bystander at this point.

 The only reason Lazarus and the LCL, aren't
> more functional is because of the lack of available time to work on it on
> the parts of the main developers, switching code mid-gears isn't the
> solution to this, more skilled programmers willing to devote their time to
> the project IS.

I don't know that more programmers will help this or not. In my experience 5
programmers is a good team size. Too many cooks can spoil the broth and all
that. Time on the otherhand I agree is the greatest problem. If there were
40 hrs to the day I would have enough :)  So my suggestion wasn't intended
to burden you or the group down with more things to do, but to narrow the
focus to one api, which covers multiple operating systems, thus leveraging
your time.

Chris

>
> Andrew
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
> http://www.hotmail.com
>
> _________________________________________________________________
>      To unsubscribe: mail lazarus-request at miraclec.com with
>                 "unsubscribe" as the Subject
>     archives at http://www.miraclec.com/list_archives/lazarus
>