Hi, On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > So my plan was to prove that you could wrap those ugly interfaces with > > a lean, elegant C interface and never look back at COM. > > Maybe I'm too much a C++ freak, but "elegant" and "C" do not get along > well for me. Well, for a long time, "elegant" and C++ did not go well together in my mind, too. However, when I saw git's source code for the first time, I thought: "Wow! This is elegant!" > Have you looked at WTL / ATL before writing your own wrapper? No. Mainly because I have no idea how well that works together with MinGW's gcc. I have a _hunch_ that you are talking about proprietary, pay-to-use components. Bang! That's a big no-no in my head. > My guess just is that you would be able to attract much more Windows > developers in helping with Cheetah if it was written in C++ rather than > C and be using common Windows APIs instead of a custom wrapper. I think that I could attract a lot more Windows developers, if I - chose Delphi, - paid them. But both things I am unprepared to do. Instead, I wrote a simple shell extension, _wrapping around_ COM (it is not a COM _wrapper_: that would mean that you could do everything with it that COM can). So the idea is to stay as far away from those pesky Windows specific APIs, confining them to a few .c files. Then we can build a fantastically platform-independent framework, providing the means to extend Explorer, Konqueror, Dolphin, Finder, etc. So I envision something like a very slim API to provide a menu extension which is dynamic enough to adapt to the context of the file you selected. In C. Of course, that is a _long_ term plan, and has not so much to do with Windows developers. Ciao, Dscho
