Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!

faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf

main
parent
thread

Re: You GOT to be kidding me!!
by Eric Laffoon on Thursday 25/Mar/2004, @22:52

> XAML has the ease of use of XML/HTML, everyone can write a GUI on XAML with minimal training! That was the point of it!

This is easier than drawing it in Designer and getting the XML generated? Irrational!

> Qt is a C++ toolkit and no matter how simple it is, it is still a C++ toolkit and the programmer will have to know how to use the language, compilers, debuggers and all things that come with it.

Grab a copy of Kommander. You can build and run dialogs that assemble text to make strings, call DCOP or run applications. You can also use the scripting language of your choice as well as control the CVS version with DCOP. All of this in a non complied dialog based application with no C++... and you still get to draw the interface.

I think that beats what you're selling for ease of use for the common person.

Related Links

·   Articles on Qt
·   Also by Eric Laffoon
·   Contact author

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )

Benefits of XML approach to coding
by Kurt Cagle on Tuesday 30/Mar/2004, @17:34

The discussion concerning the inadvisability of XML over C++ (or Qt or Java or C#, et al) misses some fairly major points. When you're working with Algol based languages or frameworks, in general what you are doing is creating an imperative description of process -- call this function, pass this result to this store, change the state of this entity -- in a very linear fashion.

Algol languages emphasis DOing things. and typically the aggregation capabilities that are characteristics of GUI-centric languages such as Visual Basic, when converted into this type of code, can often become very cryptic, heavily dependent upon object APIs and tied to one host environment. I believe that it is this reason, more than bad coding practices directly, that is responsible for the plethora of truly bad VB apps.

XML based coding on the other hand, tends to BEing, rather than doing. The aggregation and encapsulation that is often the most complex part of maintaining state within C++ gets implemented for free, connectivity between components is defined more in terms of passing agreed upon XML structures through URL linking, and the API for interaction becomes a common one, namely the Document Object Model.

The significance of this should be obvious, though its usually not. I write an XML structure, and so long as I'm consistent within the language I've defined, it does not matter which platform I'm running on. Moreover, the code can be ported in and compiled into whatever the native platform formats are on the fly -- rather than passing the binaries (or even a low level IL like Java) you just pass the description of the environment.

It's not a perfect approach, of course -- there are places where XML is not appropriate. However, as someone who's been working with XML related programming issues for the last eight years, I've found that XML as a language descriptor is in fact far more powerful than the number of lines it saves a programmer would indicate. It can be generated dynamically, it can incorporate multiple outlier streams of content transparently, and can often hide the nasty issues of dealing with different data representations by using an XML bridge, such as that from a SQL database or LDAP directory.

If you use XML like C++, you will of course receive none of these benefits, because the underlying conceptual model is completely different (and even somewhat antagonistic).I see XML as being post-OOP, requiring a different paradigm for handling well, and capable of eliminating much of what currently exists in the procedural world.

-- Kurt Cagle
-- Author, Beginning XML, 1 and 2, Wrox Press, XML Developer's Handbook (Sybex)

[ Reply To This | View ]

Re: Benefits of XML approach to coding
by Anshul Bajpai on Tuesday 30/Jan/2007, @23:10

What are the prons and cons of both XML and Compound files as a data storage?

[ Reply To This | View ]

The Fine Print: The previous comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )


		"I'd like to turn all users into developers." -- Ralf Nolden
KDE®, "K Desktop Environment", "KDE Dot News", "got the dot?" and the KDE Logo® are trademarks or registered trademarks of KDE e.V. in the European Union, the United States and other countries. All other trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster. The rest: Copyright © 2000-2008 KDE e.V. for The KDE Project. For further information or comments on this site, please contact the Webmaster.