I mean a framework based on the OOP macro developed by NaN and Thomas?

I do think this is a great work and can help us make a better use of asm.

A framework can be a small one(compared with VCL or MFC). I've tried but due to my ability, I failed.

So, I wander is there anyone able to design such a framework?
Posted on 2002-03-24 00:18:39 by taowen2002
NaN did create some OOP wrappers around a treeview and tab controls, I don't know if the code's still at this board somewhere.
I don't think it's a good idea to make an asm version of MFC. When you use an object using our model, you have to include it's full code. This means that you include all possible functionality regardless of the functionality you actually use. So that will generate bloat. Also, raw APIs for the controls are that hard to use and probably a lot smaller than with a wrapper around it.
If you use some control extensively though, it may be an advantage to use OOP.

Posted on 2002-03-24 03:49:28 by Thomas
You mean a wrapper is unnecessary.

I know, thank you.
Posted on 2002-03-24 04:13:49 by taowen2002
Well it depends... I don't see a need for a wrapper around an edit control. However if you use a treeview alot and need a lot of functions to manipulate it, it may be very useful. I just don't think we should copy the MFC mentality that everything should be an object..

Posted on 2002-03-24 04:22:38 by Thomas
Agree'd.. however, i did work out a .lib package for classes (prototype anyways) that overcomes this 'bloat' issue. But for the moment and simplicity the current version doesnt offer this.

Im looking forward to finishing what we started in the next couple months... (just gotta get outa school first).

As for frameworks, i do think you can come up with some basic window frames that can be small and simple to get going.. that will lend to reuse... basically following window's lead with a callback device where needed...

Im glad your enjoying its use tho :) When the new editor is completed, there will be more 'smarts' in the program to better manage weather you want to use a lib or continue with the current includes sytle of linking functions...

As well we are a modest team of two, and have focussed our attentions on its flexablitiy and efficiency. For this reason we havent been building alot of classes for robustness. If you do decided to do this, i would be happy to consult with you where neeced. Smallwaves has also been building some classes and has submitted them to me. If more get on board i think a decient 'package' can be built. This was one of my ideas from the begining....

Let me know if your interested, or have something to talk about at: Jaymeson(at)hotmail.com

Posted on 2002-03-24 16:00:38 by NaN
yes, I do want such a framework. Having seen your post, I've known a lot. Thank you!

I said I've tried, but I haven't got a full idea about it. What's worse, due to my capability, I am confused with the exisiting ideas.

But I think you two have mistaken my opinion, I didn't mean to build a MFC's asm version. It's useless and hard to do. I just want a framework to reduce the complexity of coding win32asm. I will be happier to work with lots of objects than to work with confusing functions with unknown effect.

Your object model is really good but highly lack necessary tutorial and product build on it.

Finally, I want to say that I am a beginner and only know a little of win32asm(thanks to Thomas' good tutorials).

Anyway, I thank you and thomas for your effort!
Posted on 2002-03-25 04:16:07 by taowen2002

NaN and Thomas have produced a clever version of OOP that is free of much of the assumptions of higher level versions but beware of not learning the very basics of 32 bit assembler in Windows. Mnemonics and API functions are the basis of Windows assembler coding and if you do not learn this stuff, you will never understand how assembler coding works.

OOP when understood allows the experienced programmer to design a program in a different manner but it will always be different to using something like MFC where many don't understand what is behind it.

When you have mastered the range of assembler instructions necessary and enough API functions to do the basic stuff in the operating system, you will be in a position to take advantage of sophisticated designs like OOP in assembler.

Good Luck,

Posted on 2002-03-25 04:28:12 by hutch--
Nuff said :)

But thanx for the reminder to think about some decient tutorials as well. We got around this with the notice it was a pre-release. So such formalities we could vacation from (my bad :) ).

I will try and make a set over the summer....

Thanx again.
Posted on 2002-03-25 22:59:35 by NaN
thank you for your reminder

I've learnt a little about assembly and win32api. I've translated the thomas' tutorial to chinese as well and I am translating the mosaic tutorial.

MFC is complex and not to use if you don't understand what it is doing behind you.

I agree with you(NaN thomas and hutch)!

Looking forward to NaN's tutorial on OOP(remember to say something about the theory).
Posted on 2002-03-26 04:20:44 by taowen2002
Will do...
Posted on 2002-03-26 15:35:34 by NaN