[futurebasic] Re: Fear and Loathing Guide

Message: < previous - next > : Reply : Subscribe : Cleanse
Home   : November 1997 : Group Archive : Group : All Groups

From: Mel Patrick <mel@...>
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 1997 17:23:22 -0800
>David wrote :
>
>It's not really that steep of a learning curve.  It's just a concept.
>And I would say that the concept is about as hard to grasp as the concept
>of event-driven programming.  Remember when you first started
>programming, and didn't know anything about event driven programming?  I
>don't know about anyone else on the list, but I will be the first to
>admit that, yes, it took me a while to grasp the concept.  Once I _did_
>grasp it however, I thought it was the best thing since...well...just the
>best thing!  OOP is no different.  Take a look at the tutorial on sun's
>web site, Mel.  It's very explanatory.

David;

Event driven was and is still the easy part for me. The Mac toolbox is/was
the bear (there aren't enough commands in FB). Getting stuff into and out
of toolbox calls/fns, callbacks, and the inline code to handle it is the
biggest part of coding around here. I like FB because even though it
doesn't support the whole toolbox, it tends to get in the way the least
when I want to do something.

Unlike many FBer's, I have my own shells and use PG to layout a window, see
what things will look like. I've never used it for anything serious since
it modifies its own resources and for my requirements thats not acceptable.

I did take a look at the Sun examples and I for one will be... driving a
car...It made absolutely no sense whatsoever for the examples given. I sort
of got what they were "pedalling" at, but I can still think of easier ways
to do it.

I think, OOP got its base perhaps from the fact that developers could turn
into code mills and churn out stuff in short order with their reusable
objects. And when you need to make a living off programming that would be a
considerable advantage. Note, I didn't say efficient nor compact code. Just
lots of it.

How about giving an example of what an object handler would look/work like?
A simple one like a toolbar object. Doesn't even have to use real FB3
commands, just pseudo codes. You don't even have to explain it, see if we
can figure it out.

Personally if I never wrote another line of code, the world would be none
the better or worse for it. Its called "fun". Let's not lose sight of that.

So long as FB3 lets me program the way I want to (right or wrong), I'm
certainly looking forward to it! If it forces one to abandon my free form
approach it's not going to be "fun" anymore. And if its not fun, I won't be
doing it.

Mel Patrick - theWabbitGuy - mel@...
http://www.intergate.bc.ca/business/mel