Brendan O'Connor wrote:
On Aug 10, 2005, at 11:28 AM, John Anderson wrote:
- The syntax isn't better: while it might be familiar to HTML
programmers just because it's XML, it isn't simpler or terser than
the equivalent Python code given in the example.
I'm not quite sure I understand the simpler/terser argument.
It is actually terser: "brief and to the point" - there is less to
type/read. No need to refer to .update, the current parcel in each
element declaration.
It is actually simpler: there are no redundant attributes like
blockName or parcel name and you don't have to explicitly declare
childrenBlocks.
The similarity to HTML may not buy you much because using CPIA
requires you understand a lot of concepts that are very different
from familiar HTML
HTML's way more mundane than CPIA, but sometimes you really want to
support the mundane tasks well: e.g. laying out widgets in a
hierarchy. I've found such tasks difficult in CPIA (where,
depressingly, they were infinitely easier in html/javascript, though
in many ways that system is less sophisticated. I couldn't have
written a chandler ui mockup in CPIA in two days time, though i did
in dhtml.)
Though, most of my difficulties related to how cpia relates to the
repository and interfaces with wx, so maybe cpia xml wouldn't solve
them. From my experience, the most important part of cpia to fix is wx!
CPIA is mostly a wrapper on top of wx, so it inherits wx's point of
view. Making CPIA not be tied to wx is almost equivalent to replacing wx
with another framework -- something that is very hard, given the goals
of platform independence and native widgets.
Brendan
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
