Re: [MiNT] WCOWORK implementation : conclusions.

[Petr Stehlik <joy@sophics.cz>]

Maurits van de Kamp píše v Po 18. 07. 2005 v 01:21 +0200:
> > About the library concept.
> >
> > i don't want to re-invent the wheel all the time.
> 
> With static libs as we have now, you don't have to either.

I believe that the root of misunderstanding is this: Arnaud and others
have implemented a library that does allow developers to create GEM
programs without dealing with AES event loops and messages (correct me
if I am wrong). By not reinventing the wheel Arnaud means that you
simply write your program logic only and don't bother with the GUI stuff
as it's all handled by the library already.

I feel like some of the old school GEM programmers might have hard time
accepting this idea and I can understand that Ozk, while looking into
the (very) old GEM programs (like TosWin must be) tries to simplify
their code by moving some of their logic into the XaAES itself. But try
to imagine that it really is all sorted out for you when you're windom
user. And Arnaud cares because it would be more work for the library
maintainers if these new modes would have to be supported (for no
apparent gain).

I'd say that the question is this: when updating old program, or writing
a new one - will you write it with event_loop and all that crap while
using WCOWORK that simplifies it a bit (and breaks the compatibility
with other, older, dead-ish AESes), or will you go for a high-level GEM
library that encapsulates it all? The Windom clearly should help
application developers to be more productive. I think it would be smart
to use work of others and build apps on top of libraries. That is the
one of the main points of FOSS.

Petr