hey ppl,
as I mentioned earlier, I am trying to implement an oop framework (I know there is already on).
This is the first version. If you download the attached file "PhatObjects.zip", you will find some help files...

Here is an example:
;---test.asm
.386
.model flat, stdcall
.stack 0ffh
option casemap:none

include ..\bin\PhatObjects.inc

use String

.data
szstr byte "this is a string", 13, 10, 0
.data
string dword ?

.code
start:
mov string, new( String )
eval String::string.setText, addr szstr
invoke StdOut, @eval( String::string.getText )
invoke ExitProcess, 0
end start

;----------------

Read the included help file "howto.txt", if you would like to
create your own classes and use them that way ;)

note: the framework has not been finished
AND: since masm has some limitations, the framework has them, too...
you may discover them at your own ;)

thx.
Posted on 2002-04-01 10:09:55 by exzito
hey ppl,
how about feedback?
Posted on 2002-04-04 10:18:53 by exzito
I really want to take a look, just too busy at the moment. Maybe, this weekend. Sounds good from the posts.
Posted on 2002-04-04 10:36:09 by bitRAKE
how about feedback?


It looks really nice from what I can see now, but I haven't actually tested it. I'm not really an OOP guy, except when programming ASP :)

I just guess everyone is too busy ATM, I find it very strange almost no one responded. This is the kind of thing that is usually reviewed almost immediately...

EDIT: I just noticed... why is this in the MASM32 forum? I'd try the COM forum, I know this isn't really COM but that's where all the OOP people are at I guess.
Posted on 2002-04-04 11:56:09 by Qweerdy
if it's not COM, don't post it there. Main would be more suited.
Posted on 2002-04-04 12:41:13 by Hiroshimator
Intersting approach...

Some aspects look intersting (such as how you call methods ~ seems a bit more readable), some aspects look familiar, but i personally dont think the objects should be packed in dll's... IMHO

I havent and wont have the time to deaply study the structure untill about the 20th, however, im happy others are joining the OOP rat race :)

:alright:
NaN
Posted on 2002-04-04 13:49:12 by NaN
Yeah, have to agree with NaN on objects shouldn't be DDL based. But I'll add that larger types of objects would be well suited to DDLs - that is far from what we have today with asm OOP. For me, I'd like a very low-level (i.e. no overhead) macro object framework, then something mid-level like NaN and Thomas OOP, then something high-level. What would be even better, is if they had the same syntax! :)
Posted on 2002-04-04 14:17:08 by bitRAKE
the advantages of dlls are that you can load that library
at run time, thus dynamic link, this is important for that classes
which need to be frequently recoded, a further recompilation of a project is not neccessary then, thats why i decided to wrap classes in dlls, but it maybe usefull to make a .lib version, too.
Posted on 2002-04-05 07:12:42 by exzito
In concept your right, thats why we have DLL's. But not to the extent your proposing. The OOP editor Thomas and I have been (ever soo slowly) working at has an assortment of Objects within it. If i were using your structure, i would have to release the relatively small editor with a slew of DLL's. Most of which im pretty certain wouldnt need changing from revision to revision.

However, when you do find one that is 'critical', that is when I would pack it in a DLL and keep the program out of the picture (as your getting at). But i can say I havent found that one yet...

Anywho, this is my personal opinion :grin: , I like files that are self contained, small, and tool-like.


bitRAKE, you bring up a good point tho, it would be nice to standardize 'macro names' for as you suggest. Then your source would not need to change, only the its include. Well for basic macro's anyways... like "NEW", "METHOD", and "DESTROY"... However, I watched people try and standardize .ini files for the many IDE projects that were in the works around a year ago. And that fell on its face... so im not holding my breath.

:alright:
NaN
Posted on 2002-04-06 05:34:44 by NaN
Nan,

I agree with the problem of getting a bunch of free thinking anarchists to agree on a standard. It ain't a gonna happen.

And as far as OOP goes, the COM-OOPers are just gonna laugh at a DESTROY method.

Wha dat?

;-)
Posted on 2002-04-07 09:59:48 by Ernie