At 3:29 PM -0400 10/2/01, Troy Rollins wrote: >The real point I was making >was that I DO agree that some programs have more portable code than others, >but that iShell takes portable code to entirely new levels. But this applies >principally to "your code", not so much code that is running as part of the >IDE, if that's what you are referring to. While iShell is indeed written in >the same language that it gives you access to, it does generally prevent you >from using the "code behind the code". I don't know, perhaps the "crystal >clarity" you refer to is only observed by those more indoctrinated in the >IDE details to a higher level than I.
I'm not really referring to the IDE itself, although that also plays a part. To give a concrete example, take the "go" command. If I set up two cards, with several different backgrounds on each of them, and different card controls as well, and perhaps a few shared fields with different contents, then the two lines of Transcript: visual effect dissolve go next card encapsulate _a lot_ of code. Behind the scenes, the engine needs to figure out what needs to go away, what needs to show up, and what needs to change its content. Then it needs to image both, and call on the appropriate code to do the dissolve. The visual effect command is fully documented, and I'm completely shielded from the details. The only drawback to that is that the shrink command doesn't have "to right" and "to left" as options :-) My point is that this is an incredible amount of code reuse. I use visual effects when going from one card to another all the time. It always works, and I never have to worry about it. The concept is perfectly abstracted, allowing me to worry about my own code. Other forms of code reuse fall short specifically because the code is exposed. The interface to it is never as clear. The distinction between my two lines of code and the thousands of lines that make the visual effect command work is never as tidy. regards, Geoff
