On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 10:45:43 +0100 (CET) [email protected] wrote: > > > On Tue, 25 Jan 2011, Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho wrote: > > > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I have to agree with Michael. I also can't understand the point of the > >> 'nogui' widgetset. An application is or GUI or non-GUI (latter > >> requiring no widgetset at all). > > > > Does it need to have a point? Some people find it useful, so there is > > no harm in including it. It has zero effects on the code of people > > that don't use it. > > It must somewhere have a point, because it certainly has lots of > disadvantages: > > a) It deceives people. You'll get run-time errors if at any point you try to > do > something GUI related such as showing a dialog or getting a font metric.
The same could be said for the cocoa, android or fpgui widgetset. There are always users with wrong expectancies. > b) It encourages people to write bad code. Example: the well-known EpikTimer. > > It is a perfect example of a badly written component. It includes > Forms, Dialogs and whatnot in the uses clause, when there is > absolutely no need for them. But by doing so, it creates a dependency on > a GUI when there is no need for one. EpikTimer existed before the nogui widgetset. > c) It creates larger binaries. Yes. There are better solutions, but they cost more time. > d) The widget set - like any other - requires maintenance. If it isn't > there, there is no work needed. The maintenance is far less than one promille. > Plenty of reasons for not having it. Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list [email protected] http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
