Hi muggins, hi tronkel
I have taken a closer look to Fltk/Fluid on
http://seriss.com/people/erco/fltk/
Fluid is a GUI-Builder like Glade with the advantage to generate C-Code from the selected widgets.
Fltk is a platform-independant windows-library, but I am not shure whether it has been ported to Gtk+. Has someone more knowhow about that?
The video-tutorials on this page are excellent. So Fltk/Fluid could be a choice if it is possible to create Gtk+ applications, but they still require an IDE.
Hi BarryK
I already had read Menu/Help/How to program for Puppy but the but the choices offered there did not satisfy me enough. So as a professional software developer I am hoping that more Puppy developers want to create applications that are beyond the scope of these options fitting for simple applications but not for complex and optimized solutions.
Hi all
Maybe I still have not made clear what I am thinking about. So here is:
My plea for offering a C/C++ programming option in Puppy Linux
In my opinion the programming options to create Gtk+ programs in Puppy Linux are mediocre. Let explain my point of view:
1. Gtkdialog within a shell script
Even if gtkdialog has it's right for small applications like Pprocess it's limit is overstepped in applications like Pburn.
If you bother about taking a look into these scripts, you will see which mental acrobatics is necessary to get results:
a) Function results are stored in temporary files.
b) There is no simple way to create typed variables.
c) Lists are not supported.
d) The use of function parameters is limited.
e) Text manipulation is ineffective, hard to understand and only possible with the use of cryptic tools like sed, awk and cut.
f) The language itself is hard to understand. For me the only reason for it's existence is that very conservative point of view: "It has been in all Unix-Derivatives and so it must stay in all Unix-Derivatives until the Day of Judgment". It is a fossil that can be used for what it was developed: "The combination of skilled unix tools in a script".
g) Due to all these limits the performance of such a program must be lousy and can only be tolerated for applications where time doesn't play a role.
h) For those people that want to do even more chin-ups there is a good guide about shell scripts in:
http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/
What does it mean to use this language for complex applications:
I have to spend a lot of time to learn this language, I have to go into contortions to go around all it's traps. So a lot of my development time will be spent to find solutions for this language instead of the problem I am thinking about. It reminds me a little bit of the Stone Age of programming, when there
used to be guys that were able to read the machine code within the binaries laughing about people needing an Assembler to understand what is meant.
My result is:
To use the shell-script-language for complex applications, is same as to use a toothbrush for painting a wall. You will get interesting results that will be admired by a lover of this kind of art, but for the most purposes it is a waste of time.
So I on the one hand admire guys like Sigbert undertaking the punishment to create applications like Pburn as a gtkdialog-shell-script. On the other hand I think: "What a waste of time and talent. What could this guy reach with a reasonable Programming Language?"
What are the alternatives:
2. TCL/TK
TCL/TK is an interpreter to with all it's performance disadvantages
3. Puppybasic
Except of being an interpreter to puppybasic which is simple to understand only can be used for simple solutions.
4. Freebasic
Even if the programs created may be compiled and the guys developing the language may have solutions for complex purposes, it is still Basic and won't reach the possibilities of a C-Program
5. C/C++
I have programmed for about 20 years in different programming languages reaching from several kinds of assembler up to SQL but my favorite is still C/C++.
Why? If you are not accustomed to it C may be is cryptic as shell scripts are for me. Pascal is a lot nicer and leads to similar results. But C enables me to create solutions ranging from close to assembler up to GUI with a minimum of key typing effort.
So C for me is the English of Programming, universal in its purpose, rather easy to understand and quite fast to code. And it is no accident that even about 90% of the programs in Linux have been coded in C/C++.
What really makes me wonder is that a seem to be the only one seeing the need to a C/C++ IDE in Puppy Linux. So I especially ask the Puppy Linux developers:
How do you want to create a small and effective Linux distribution, if you avoid using the tools that enable you to create such kind of programs?
Has the C-development package sunk so low that it is used only to compile third part applications?
Who else sees the need to have a good C/C++ IDE in Puppy Linux?