|
I might be able to translate it, but 24kB is significant. I have about 300kB of usable general purpose RAM, 4MB of NVS flash, and *sometimes* 4MB of PSRAM
Basically how I've orchestrated this it works in 300kB but works much faster if you have the PSRAM as well.
The 4MB of NVS storage is divvied up between my code and a data partition I use to store unpacked EPUB content. I'm not sure offhand how much program space I have.
The bad part of using more program space is it starts to make the dev cycle turnaround longer because you have to upload the code via serial uart.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong w/ hyphenating at vowels? Software can figure out where the vowels are w/o a dictionary Best Wishes - Cheerio
|
|
|
|
|
I mean, breaking bookkeeper on the first o seems kind of not good.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Why not break at the consonants then or simply rely on whatever the rule is for word wrapping w/ hyphenation I assume such a rule exist But in any case a dictionary is not needed - Cheerio
|
|
|
|
|
Look at the CSS options which cover a lot
https://tippingpoint.dev/pure-css-truncate-text
Seem like simple wrap would be good for an ereader just splitting the word at the last char on the line...no ellipses or such needed.
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I'm hoping I can get away with. =)
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
If me I'd question if this a complication that actually needs handling or just a programming challenge I want to figure out.
Real world: what application this on, why would there not be enough screen space in current era. If was user input box on very narrow component, well the problem is flipped why user inputting into narrow viewed space, why cant space be increased.
if label - again flip word. having it increase height of space might not be desirable, so leaves truncation "." "..." as an option.
Put generically: figure out if this a problem that needs solving or if asking the wrong question.
|
|
|
|
|
I mean that's fair, but here's the thing: I don't know the screen size and it may be as small as 300px across. It's an e-reader
300px is not practical for an e-reader, I know - but it's more about me not knowing the functional design specs of the hardware yet. I'm coding defensively in light of lack of solid specs yet.
We simply can't know the specs yet, but it will probably be about 600px across like the nook but there may be a smaller version that's more pocketable if that's practical. Still, if they zoom in, or if the title (H1 tag) is long it could still be a problem.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
It sounds like you are leaning toward a hard break at the display margin.
Instead of using a hyphen, how about another pair of symbols?
I am thinking of the proof readers notation when two words are supposed to be joined. It is like a subscripted “u” that connects the words. Draw half of it on the break, and the other half on the continuation. Or use an ellipsis at both the break and the continuation.
Or just a random hyphen. Don’t worry about being correct for a word like that.
It will likely never happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You might consider "soft hyphens" - Cheerio
|
|
|
|
|
I have since found something called the Unicode Line Breaking algorithm and I've decided to go that route.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Anyone here working on a desktop application using the new WinUI API?
I'm going to be starting a new personal project and I'm considering all of the available UX platforms. I'd like to be able to eventually publish this project as a commercial app, so I want to choose a UI platform that is relevant and modern-looking. I haven't yet delved into the WinUI and I'm wondering if it's worth the effort.
Build desktop Windows apps with the Windows App SDK - Windows apps | Microsoft Docs[^]
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: I'm going to be starting a new personal project and I'm considering all of the available UX platforms. I'd like to be able to eventually publish this project as a commercial app, so I want to choose a UI platform that is relevant and modern-looking.
"Modern looking"? As opposed to "accesible", recognizable and configurable?
Comctls32 always worked. WinForms.
That UI is recognizable, exists in multiple platforms and is cheap to maintain.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
This wouldn't be a line-of-business app. This would have to appeal to consumers.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Andrew x64 wrote: This wouldn't be a line-of-business app. This would have to appeal to consumers.
Especially then, you want a UI that's recognizable, predictable and tested.
WinForms is vastly underappreciated. High-contrast schemes for visually impaired controlled by system settings.
Ofcourse that doesn't appeal, does it? You need something that screams "untested" with animations.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: You need something that screams "untested" with animations.
Exactly.
Seriously though, I'm not against using Winforms, it's what I know best. It's just that it doesn't look modern. And appearances mean everything to commercial success.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, must look new, instead of tested and trustworthy 
So do the WPF thingy? Make your buttons animated. Throw out decades of research.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Come on now. WPF is far more than how you describe it. I can't remember the last WPF app that had animated buttons. I've since moved on to HTML5 but I am still impressed with the comprehensiveness of WPF.
And it's the same low-level APIs at the end of the day - WPF is just an abstraction (and it's been around a LONG time).
|
|
|
|
|
There are a number of excellent component vendors e.g. DevExpress and Telerik who make WinForms apps look sensational.
Garry Lowther
CEO and Founder
TriSys Business Software
Cambridge, England
www.trisys.co.uk
|
|
|
|
|
We use DevExpress with WinForms for our commercial desktop app. It's style controller is great for giving a modern look. However, DevExpress has the issue of it can do anything - if you set the properties just right. We spend more time getting the exact combination of properties to achieve the desired effect than anything else when using DevExpress. That said, their online support is excellent and free. They will frequently give you code samples of how to make something happen with their tools.
As for the style controller, we have a master base form that all other forms inherit. This is used to set the style for all components recursively. Then, in child forms' constructors, we just call the method base.SetStyle().
Bond
Keep all things as simple as possible, but no simpler. -said someone, somewhere
|
|
|
|
|
The image below corresponds to a software I made exclusively using Winforms. I designed my own controls for Buttons (Gradients, 2 lines of text with different fonts and colors), DataGridView, Labels (Gradients Horizontal and vertical text [Up and Down]), Closable Tab Well, and some others. Usually Nobody recognizes it as Winforms, but it works exactly as what it is. Old reliable WINFORMS.
OneDrive[^]
So you can see that it is possible to make "Modern Looking" software in this easy-to-work-with GUI.
I hope you can see it, because I never posted any images in CP before  
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's awesome! I don't have the graphics skills to do that.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
