On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 9:54 AM, Michael Schnell <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't imagine how deliberately maintaining duplicated code sequencers > would reduce the overall maintenance effort rather than increasing it. > This contradicts any software design rules "!out of the book". But > happily it's not me do decide ;).
The point is that the code only looks duplicated, but really it is not. The gtk_create_button or whatever which is being called for gtk1 is not the same gtk_create_button (invented routine) which is being called for gtk2. And they *do not* behave exactly the same. Or worse then that, then most often behave, but 10% of the time don't and then you get very hard to fix bugs. Fixing a gtk1 bug when may break gtk2, and vice-versa. The same APIs under Windows desktop and Windows CE often has a significantly different result for each of those 2 types of Windows. So the code which was tested as perfectly working under Win32 doesn't produce the same results under WinCE because the API being used isn't the same, so it isn't the same code. If you could remove all calls to the underlying widgetset library, then yes, totally, you are 100% right that those functions should probably be in a common unit, but trying to unify code which calls functions which just happen to have the same names, but actually come from different libraries is a recipe for a maintenance nightmare. -- Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
