From: Brock Peabody (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-29 13:25:51
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
> On Behalf Of Bohdan
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 11:29 AM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: GUI/GDI template library
> Looks like that most ideas about GUI library are spinning around
> interface. What about simple resource files ? XML? Despite this
> is old enough, it has a lot of advantages :
> 1. Resouce files can be easily edited by hand, contrary to
> GUI-building code.
I don't think custom resource files would be any easier to edit that
inline C++ code. I think they would be much less easy to edit and read.
> 2. GUI-building code for complicated UI will be poor for compiler
> and in most cases code size.
> As example you can look at spirit c++ parser ...
Writing (for lack of a better term) spirit-like code will make your
compile times increase if you are not careful. You need to break
complicated GUI's into less complicated parts that can be compiled
> 3. It is possible to create some kind of resource-editor which can
> dramatically increase development time.
This is certainly possible (and has been done many times) but I would
debate its positive effects on development time. It's the interface
between the resource world and the 'real' code world that is so
difficult. As you suggested, you'll have to solve many of the same
problems involved in serialization - why bother doing that if your
problem domain doesn't explicitly require that type of solution?
Whether it's a good idea or not, I think if you were going to go to the
trouble of generating a resource script language and editor that you
wouldn't necessarily want to tie it to one programming language (i.e.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk