|
 and i shouldnt worry about my code to port them..
|
|
|
|
|
A cleaner separation of layers of the application like Business Component, Presentation layer greatly accelerates and enhances the portability factor of the application onto multiple desired targets.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree and am amazed that you even knew what GWBasic was (in 1994), let alone programmed in it. Yes I read your bio. You understand what many people who call their self’s programmers do not, separation of work from UI and the KISS principle.
It is difficult to separate the layers some times, but it is well worth the effort to do so. I am not a business programmer and consider breaking down the essentials into separate units second nature (I have always done that). If you see a pattern, then break it off so that it can be used over and over again.
It still confuses me when I look at some code and point out that they are wasting their time writing the same thing again. There are only three levels to be concerned about: low, middle, and high. The low is systems dependant, the high is UI supplier dependent, and the middle is up for grabs. Meaning that in the middle you can write portable code and if that is portable, you can pretty much ignore the low level.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."Edsger Dijkstra
|
|
|
|
|
I agree,
However it takes longer to write good clean layered code.
If you are working in a project centric environment the extra time spent "doing it right" is almost never seen as a good thing by those managing the project (time costs money!). The longer term payoffs in maintainability and re-use are intangible and therefore usually not appreciated.
It can make doing-it-right a hard engineering principle to maintain 
If you are fortunate enough to work in a product centric environment then its not so hard to champion this approach :->
|
|
|
|
|
In C++ I use cross-platform libraries while in C# I try to support Mono. It's very easy in C++ to find cross-platform libraries, including for GUI. GTK, wxWidgets, FLTK and FOX just to name a few. Mono, though, is really poorly implemented for System.Windows.Forms. It definitely needs some more work. I think that the Mono team should stop working on 1.1 and 2.0 implementations, and should just focus on 3.0. It is already so far behind...;)
|
|
|
|
|
irrdev wrote: I think that the Mono team should stop working on 1.1 and 2.0 implementations, and should just focus on 3.0. It is already so far behind...
Or even better, they should skip 3.0 and 3.5 which will be obsolete in a couple of years and concentrate on something like 5.0
|
|
|
|
|
good idea!
Make it simple, as simple as possible, but not simpler.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer writing code in a portable way when possible. I like to do it one time and then import it where needed and with as few changes as possible. I still have C code I wrote 17 years ago that is still valid and have had some rare occasions to use. Of course I am talking about internal code not GUI code.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence."Edsger Dijkstra
|
|
|
|
|
Most of the code i have written in the past 7 years is portable (Windos-Unix), but the desktop GUI part is Windows-only. The only really succesful multiplatform GUI I know of is HTML anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: but the desktop GUI part is Windows-only.
ours was until the end of last year. There is Qt, WxWidgets, and others, depending on detail and license needs.
_________________________
Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau.
Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
|
|
|
|
|
|
> The only really succesful multiplatform GUI I know of is HTML anyway
What about java and flash?
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to create my classes, more and more often, as .NET class libraries. By their nature, they're accessable to the other .NET languages, and so the C++.NET will be used in C# (No one here does VB of any type, but that's per a previous survey).
The question really resolves to one of reusability, does it not?
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
by the statement "No one here does VB of any type", do you mean in your company? or are you refering to the previous survey that showed 49.75% (of people who bothered to answer it) use (and plan to use) some form of VB? exactly what part of 49.75% is none?
|
|
|
|
|
Here, where I am.
This, of course, is the center of the universe. Thus, for all practical purpose the answer to one or another of your questions could be yes. I thought everone knew that.
Perhaps I'm just noticing the 23.19% who are abandoning it and feeling ever sooooo smug.
Don't be so sensitive! Clearly, by the way it was added (with no context required), it was for a laugh. Would it have been better if I'd used a rediculous smiley??*
* (rediculous spuriously added to describe smiley so as to strike yet another poster's raw nerves**)
** (this, of course, assuming, they care what I think)***
*** (this further assuming they even think I think)****
**** (this even futher assuming they think)
goto **
|
|
|
|
|
Balboos wrote: Don't be so sensitive! Clearly, by the way it was added (with no context required), it was for a laugh. Would it have been better if I'd used a rediculous smiley??*
OF COURSE YOU SHOULD USE THE BLODDY RIDICULOUS SMILEYS, that's what they are there for, so someone with NO SENSE OF HUMOUR can see that someone is trying to be FUNNY HAHA!
Hopefully taken in the same sense that the pre-previous post was authored
Who the f*** is General Failure, and why is he reading my harddisk?
|
|
|
|
|
Phil.Benson wrote: Balboos wrote:
Don't be so sensitive! Clearly, by the way it was added (with no context required), it was for a laugh. Would it have been better if I'd used a rediculous smiley??*
OF COURSE YOU SHOULD USE THE BLODDY RIDICULOUS SMILEYS, that's what they are there for, so someone with NO SENSE OF HUMOUR can see that someone is trying to be FUNNY HAHA!
There is a solution to all of this: someone needs to create a new set of non-rediculous smileys. I further suggest that one the fine readers of this column, perhaps even you yourself, do so in order that it may remain open-source - lest they get control of them.
<br />
........................<br />
........................<br />
........................<br />
..||||||||...|||||||||..<br />
....(o)).......((o))....<br />
........../ \...........<br />
........./___\.......... <br />
........................<br />
........................<br />
..........OH!............<br />
........................<br />
........................<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I voted No but the reason is that most of my code is naturally cross-platform as it is in Ruby and rarely uses OS specific calls. Where I hit the disc is easy to change and all dependencies work cross platform.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Shog9 wrote: And with that, Paul closed his browser, sipped his herbal tea, fixed the flower in his hair, and smiled brightly at the multitude of cute, furry animals flocking around the grassy hillside where he sat coding Ruby on his Mac...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
