Re: GNAT for MS Visual Studio

["Steve" <nospam_steved94@comcast.net>]

"Markus E L" <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de> 
wrote in message news:ltfy11y10v.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de...
> Steve,
>
> I'd like to press my point: Have you ever seriously considered not
> using a GUI builder but building a GUI "by hand", just instantiating
> and inserting the widget where needed? It might seem tedious at the
> beginning, but, in my experience doesn't make much more work in the
> long run. Furthermore it provides opportunities too, because if highly
> dynamic GUIs are required (e.g. Widgets being replaced or removed
> dependent on the state of the program or editing process), GUI
> builders can't provide that (whereas "manual instantiation" has no
> problems), and there is also the opportunity to tweak layout,
> alignment, colours and inserting modified custom widgets.
>

To me that's too much like asking the question:
  Have you seriously considered not using a programming language and 
compiler and just programming in machine code?

  When you have a visual tool for creating a user interface, you can do 
things like restructure a window to meet new requirements with very little 
effort.  In some cases you don't have to edit the code at all to bring about 
a significant change in appearance.

  Yes I have built up windows the hard way.  I have done so using GWindows. 
If you have a fairly static application, where the user interface changes 
infrequently, it isn't a very big deal.  But if you have an application that 
is revised frequently then if you don't have a visual tool for updating the 
UI after a relatively short time the UI degrades to something that is 
functional but just doesn't look good or is awkward to work with.

> GUI builders are fine if you're programming for paper-shufflers:
> Everything is a "form" than, as it was in the time of paper forms.
>
> But interactive software needs to be smarter -- and that is what GUI
> builders can't provide in my (admittedly limited and perhaps dated
> experience). So if I end up anyway not being able to use the GUI
> builder, I could as well learn how to use the tool kit in the language
> proper.

If the components that are placed on forms are dynamic, and there is 
automatic interaction between the components on a form (like there is with 
.NET) then things can be very dynamic.

Most of the applications I work on have to do with sawmill automation. 
Scanning logs at various stages of processing and optimizing the breakdown 
decisions and process.  The application requires a lot of configuration to 
describe the machinery, the products being produced, and rules on how to cut 
things.  There are dozens of dialogs in the system.  Trying to maintain 
these using hand coded windows is just plain silly.  Parts of the system are 
very dynamic... displaying 3d images of material being processed, diagnostic 
information, etc.

Regards,
Steve
(The Duck)

>
> That said, I admit, I often use Glade to mock up a GUI for discussion
> and demo screenshots. But more often than not, I'm also putting that
> into code manually after I found what I (or the client) has been
> looking for. Might be peculiarity of mine, though.
>
> Regards -- Markus
>