How do you use modern MS Windows GUIs (eg. ActiveX, .Net, Qt ...) with Modula2?
Wolfgang Greiner
until now I used to program the business application that I maintain
directly on Win32API. (with Stony Brook Modula 2). But now I think about
using a more modern lookung GUI.
Unfortunately there are no assistents for Modula 2 and all the interface
definitions are in other languages. (most often C++).
I think I am not the only Modula 2 programmer in this situation. How do
you handle this?
Regards
Wolfgang Greiner
Marco van de Voort
I changed to Pascal/Delphi. Delphi is also slowly decreasing but still
potent.
I've thought about "selling out", and going C++ or even C#, but I have
trouble finding technologies on that side that last longer than a couple of
years above the winapi level. (winforms is dead, long live WPF, and the MFC
was never very friendly), so I postponed that again and stick to Delphi for
a few more years. The environment is very productive, and the rest is
reasonable to good.
For multiple platform stuff I use Lazarus (disclaimer: I'm involved with
FPC/Lazarus), but for me this is now more small GUIs, server apps and
utils.
Gary Scott
There's numerous nice builder packages for Fortran also with some even
having platform independent APIs. You can choose various styles from
"native look and feel" to Motif, etc. Not a large selection of styles,
but very easy to write "blend in" engineering apps. Some even have
better (easier) "callback" mechanisms than for example the Windows
native method.
--
Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net
Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com
Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html
If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.
-- Henry Ford
Marco van de Voort
>> For multiple platform stuff I use Lazarus (disclaimer: I'm involved with
>> FPC/Lazarus), but for me this is now more small GUIs, server apps and
>> utils.
>>
> There's numerous nice builder packages for Fortran also with some even
> having platform independent APIs.
True. Stronger, every language has some wxwidget or qt or gtk portability
feature.
But Lazarus is native on win32/64/ce and OS X. And that matters for me.
And on the core win32 platform I can use something Wirthian, and large scale
commercially supported with a component market.
Only MS would be a stronger market partner, but as said, I don't like the
fact that they don't provide a long term stable visual library.
Gary Scott
GDI or OPENGL, you get to choose without changing the application call
interface (same app-level API to call either GDI or OPENGL for
graphics). The "native look and feel" are achieved through direct Win32
API calls, not an emulation.
Marco van de Voort
>> True. Stronger, every language has some wxwidget or qt or gtk portability
>> feature. But Lazarus is native on win32/64/ce and OS X. And that matters
>> for me.
>>
> GDI or OPENGL, you get to choose without changing the application call
> interface (same app-level API to call either GDI or OPENGL for
> graphics).
Well, Lazarus does something like that yes. However that requires
compromises. The opposite is to paint every widget everywhere by hand, and
thus have an alien feel on all platforms.
> The "native look and feel" are achieved through direct Win32 API calls,
> not an emulation.
Correct. And same with e.g. Carbon on OS X.
lk
"Wolfgang Greiner" <wolfgang...@web.de> wrote in message
news:ftehng$a85$00$1...@news.t-online.com...
I take your point - even the latest Modula-2 IDE is nothing compared to
NetBeans or similar.
However, my own opinion is that Modula2 is dying. I first came across it
back in 1992 and I really really like it. It was the first language I ever
learned "formally". If I were writing something and wanted to demonstrate
algorithm design in a purely technical sense, I'd use Modula2. However
those situations rarely arise unless you're writing a programming textbook
so my advice would be to strongly consider porting / rewriting your code to
another language.
Modula2 is great - a brilliant heavily typed language that makes sensible
use of the library concept. Trouble is - things move on - no more so
evidently than in programming and I'd suggest another "heavily typed"
language and java would be my suggestion.
Jürgen Lerch
On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:46:47 +0100, "lk" wrote:
> However, my own opinion is that Modula2 is dying. I first came across it
[...]
> so my advice would be to strongly consider porting / rewriting your code to
> another language.
Of course, that's the reason Modula2 is dying.
(C as another, even older language seems still to be going
quite strong.)
Ad Astra!
JuL
--
Jürgen ,,JuL'' Lerch / L'état, c'est toi. (Moi)
jyn...@gmx.de /
Keith Hopper
lk <gofy...@wrong.address.com> wrote:
[snip]
> However, my own opinion is that Modula2 is dying. I first came across it
> back in 1992 and I really really like it. It was the first language I ever
> learned "formally". If I were writing something and wanted to demonstrate
> algorithm design in a purely technical sense, I'd use Modula2. However
> those situations rarely arise unless you're writing a programming textbook
> so my advice would be to strongly consider porting / rewriting your code to
> another language.
> Modula2 is great - a brilliant heavily typed language that makes sensible
> use of the library concept. Trouble is - things move on - no more so
> evidently than in programming and I'd suggest another "heavily typed"
> language and java would be my suggestion.
Java may be a typed language - but I would hardly agree with
'heavily'!
Keith
--
Inspired!