In a perfect future, the target of this API would be the current dreamweaver user. You
should not need any programming skills to build pages using DynAPI. Discussing if this
or that programming model is better makes sense when you are in a computer science
forum but in this case, if overloading this already-bloated API with additional
complexities does not result in a better cross-browser support or a better end-user (
read desinger ) interface, then I'm against it.
Sometimes the code is the objective, the goal of a project, and then it makes sense to
discuss how should code behave and be structured. In this case the code is nothing but
a tool: it has to be properly programmed, but that's enough.
Henrik Våglin wrote:
> About the current discussion on OO, JS, OOJS and the confusion on what they are:
>
> OO is the model.
> OOM is the method.
> OOP is the technique.
>
> Therefor JS is a tool of the prottyping OO technique. It's unnecessary to create a
>more classbased structure of what is essentially a merge of prototyping and
>class-inheritance (ie DynAPI). It's merely a question of approach wheter to use
>prototyping - which is more towards experimental development - or class inheritance.
>the only real different is wheter to allow for more unconditional extensability that
>is the default of javascript and which DynAPI is mostly today VS a more conditional
>class inheriting technique.
>
> Personally I vote for the previous and I think most others who are more designers at
>heart prefer it to remain so. The only reason to make DynAPI more class inheriting
>would be to attract more OOP developers (who generally are more used to
>class-inheritencing tools), which of course would be great for development, but
>distracts more from those who need the API more - the designers. Consider the
>folloowing...
>
> Developers don't need a new language as much as designer does. There's enough
>class-inheriting OOP tools around for developers. I also think Microsoft is moving
>out of range for designers with their new .NET structure which the new ASP+ currently
>in beta is part of. Is DynAPI OO (or next gen) to compete with .NET? I vote for
>keeping DynAPI structure developing as it is and remain a real API, not a programming
>semi-language!
>
> My plead is to focusing on targetting DynAPI for designers. A OO DynAPI might
>instead be bringing design enhancement for programmers to comprehand. In other words:
>keep it separated and focus more on different users, but of course all kind of
>exchange of knowledge is a good thing - so also keep a symbiotic relationship between
>the two (and maybe designers and developers will come to understand eachothers
>expertise areas more).
>
> Henrik Våglin [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ]
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
