Hi,

I am not a scripter, I wish I were, but time and energy are limited. I
did create multi-thousand line classes that still work. What I did is
undoubtedly the work of programmers although you are setting them
apart as if they were a different species/race. Coders are people,
some of them even scruffy disorganised persons. What is important for
anyone to program is that one knows what statements do. There is also
no need to understand what classes do within themselves as long as one
is not a component writer.

Programmers are not some type of monks who love to be strict with
themselves for the sake of being 'disciplined'.

Edward



On 16/03/2016, Joel Roth <joelz@???> wrote:
> Hey Edward,
>
> Well props to you for taking this on. Perhaps I will learn a
> little C++ one day, but as far as I've heard, programmers
> must be far more disciplined than we humble scripters.
>
> I'm just reaching back to possibly revisit a bit of GUI
> stuff, using Tk from perl. Plain graphics, but code is
> well-beaten-upon and rugged.
>
> A lot of developers will code an app in Python, and then
> rewrite in C or C++ those hot routines that matter. But a
> change in language wouldin't free you from the objects
> which belong to your chosen graphic toolkit and their peculiar
> logic.
>
> I looked at Wx for a while, but way more code than Tk,
> and what does it give me? Mainly just looks.
>
> Have fun!
>
> Joel
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 08:41:47AM +0100, Edward Bartolo wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am using 'Object Model' in this sense:
>> The way object's data and functions are accessed which tghitly depends
>> on how objects are designed, i.e. their architecture. By the latter I
>> am NOT referring to object hierarchy.
>>
>> Having used in the past for several years other object models in
>> Delphi (TM) and Lazarus (free/open), is making me realise that the
>> object model employed in Delphi and Lazarus are far more logical and
>> productive.
>>
>> I have been struggling to embrace Gtk+ and Qt object models in vain
>> due to their counter-intuitive object models. Instead of using real
>> tangible objects as a model they adopted to use an unnatural broken
>> model for their widget architecture. So, to start my car, I need to
>> create a starter object, plug it in into my car's engine, initialise
>> its circuitry, and finally, if my car should start! This is also like
>> having a detacheable digestive system, which one would plug in when
>> one needs to digest food!
>>
>> Why not integrate all objects required by a widget in the first place?
>> I can see an answer to this: to save memory space and processing
>> resources so object can be trimmed to what is necessary. That is a
>> good reason, but shouldn't a good widget designer create
>> not-often-used objects when an attempt to use them is made. You may
>> say that causes an access violation/segmentation fault. However, that
>> can be avoided easily.
>>
>> Why shouldn't a Gtk+ coder be able to use something like this:
>> gtkobjectinstance->helper-object->method()
>>
>> And
>>
>> gtkobjectinstance->helper-object->property = newpropertyvalue;
>>
>> ?
>>
>> I am perplexed, but it seems logic is not uniform.
>>
>> Edward
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dng mailing list
>> Dng@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
> --
> Joel Roth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dng mailing list
> Dng@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>