On 07/12/11 10:52, Robert Arkiletian wrote:
> What were the reasons that we had 2.0 in the first place. From what I
> understand it was mainly the cleaner looking API (namespace) and UTF8.
I think another reason was stronger modularity
in some high level widgets like Browsers and Menus.
IIRC, the 'items' in these widgets are regular widgets in 2.x,
vs. custom structures/classes in 1.x.
And I think there were other things 2.x addressed.
Modularity underneath I didn't care as much about.
As a 1.x person, as long as I could do what I needed to do,
I didn't care whether I called Xxx() or yyy::Zzz() to do it,
as long as it worked. And if it didn't work, as long as I
could copy the widget's code and tweak it to do what I wanted,
optionally posting it back as a patch.
And I think that last bit is important in FLTK's growth
and success. For an app programmer to pop the hood and
become a widget developer to get what they want is important.
So the dev side of FLTK should be easy and not hard.
ie. complex wrappers and stuff might make customizing
FLTK seem hard to an app programmer trying to copy an
FLTK widget and modify it to work the way they need.
I also will fall /against/ modularity if it makes things
syntactically uglier. For instance, I know STL is very modular,
but AFAIK, if you want to delete all occurences of the string "foo"
from a vector, you have to do something like:
v.erase(remove(v.begin(), v.end(), "foo"), v.end());
..which I'm sure makes sense from a modularity point of view,
but damn, couldn't it just be:
v.remove_all("foo");
I judge the entire STL library on stuff like that as "ugly".
The more I work with it, the more I find stuff like this and
hate it, cause it uglies up my code.
_______________________________________________
fltk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.easysw.com/mailman/listinfo/fltk
