Re: [ooc-compiler] OOC GUI development for Windows (was: Problemswith OOC under Cygwin 1.1.2)

[Stewart G. <gre...@mu...>]

Tim...@ma... wrote:

> > On my system, a stripped statically linked XTest.exe is just under 720K.
> > This includes most of the VO widgets, but also includes the GC and
> > probably most of the OOC core library. H2O.exe is a fairly small
> > application; it also uses the GC and core and is just under 210K. At a
> > rough guess, I'd say that the size of VO is therefore about 500K, around
> > one quarter of the size of GTK.
> 
> That is nice to know. I'm thinking about porting VO to a still to buy
> PDA (cool idea, isn't?). As we all know size matters. The Yopy (to be
> released
> to the end of the year) is my candidate. It has a rather huge resolution
> (320x240, I think), 16bit colors, Linux and 32MB flash and 32 MB memory
> (AFAIK).
> It has to be ported in two ways: The oo2c compiler must be ported
> (don't know anything about that) and VO has to be ported to it (Yopy uses W
> Window).

Sounds cool, but it might have some serious uses too (eg. embedded
devices). What is W-Windows? Is that a drawing layer, or does it include
some widgets too?
 
> The use of shared libraries will result in even smaller application, so
> the port could realy make sense regarding the limited resources. Because of
> the layouting engine one should be able to get application running on the
> limited display, too (I thinking about some nice tricks).

That's one advantage of the VO (and Java) approach over straight visual
design. I've found that dialogs I've designed using Blackbox/Windows
aren't readable under MacOS because the sizes of controls and fonts are
different. If they were positioned based on constraints rather than
absolute coordinates, it would not be a problem.

Cheers,
  Stewart