End of the 80x25 Console

[Guy Dombrowski]

Screenshot

Hi Chris,

Here is a JPG of my main menu.
The PBCC5 upgrade is well worth the $$$ asked.
It is a real pleasure to write code with it.

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pb...92e432fe6b8d82

[Chris Holbrook]

Nice try Guy but I don't have permission to read that link!

[Guy Dombrowski]

Posting attachment

Sorry about that, it is the first time I have tried to post any attachment.
I uploaded my JPG picture but something must be missing in order for the attachment to be available ?

Trying to copy link location in "Manage Attachments"


http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pb...1&d=1224024701

[Chris Holbrook]

Thanks Guy that works.

I think I should buy one. Now, where did I put the old licence number?

[Guy Dombrowski]

Another menu

Chris,

Here is what could be some of the other menus.
This will be used for storing Matrix Printers Escape codes.
The first 20 lines are your descriptions and the next 20 are the actual escape codes.
You can simply edit the file with NotePad for testing purpose.

I bet you Bob can find your missing number very quickly.

http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pb...1&d=1224028827

[Guy Dombrowski]

Wide monitor

Here is the reason for those long code lines.
I have 2 of those side by side.
I usually park my program output on the left monitor so I can watch the new results as I change the code on the right one.
Sorry about all the side scrolling you have to to.
This screen is 800 by 600.


http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pb...1&d=1224030131

[Chris Holbrook]

Guy, thanks for the example, my V5 upgrade order is in.

[Guy Dombrowski]

Upgrade

Chris, you won't regret it

[Chris Holbrook]

Continuing Guy's theme, I'm thinking of using the GRAPHIC WINDOW as a canvas for an almost Windows-free GUI Forms builder, for use by people who either don't know or won't know Windows (I respect the reasons for both). It also has to be very simple to use. And simple to develop.

There are two sides to it, writing the forms designer and writing the controls themselves. I've got a bit of experience in each of these.

Anyone care to join me in this? Thoughtful, communicative design input would be most welcome at this stage.

[Rodney Hicks]

Run with this Chris. I know you can do it alone if you have to. It makes good sense. I'm too busy to offer anything but encouragement(aren't you lucky!). I would like to see this happen.

[Guy Dombrowski]

Great minds think alike....

Chris,

I have been working toward that very goal.

So far, my code has been designed for my own needs but with help from a few of you hot programmers, we could end up with a new tool for the non Window guys.

The main problem with Console programming has always been the poor display but with the Graphic Console concept, I think it will be a lot more popular in the futur.

So, you can count me in

[Michael Mattias]

I'm thinking of using the GRAPHIC WINDOW as a canvas for an almost Windows-free GUI Forms builder, for use by people who either don't know or won't know Windows (I respect the reasons for both). It also has to be very simple to use. And simple to develop.

Were I with PowerBASIC Inc, I might suggest using the PowerBASIC Compiler for Windows. This product is designed to create Windows GUI applications. They have this new thing called "Dynamic Dialog Tools" which eliminates most of the Windows API ("SDK-style") call requirements.

???

[Chris Holbrook]

Were I with PowerBASIC Inc, I might suggest using the PowerBASIC Compiler for Windows.

Were you with PowerBASIC, Inc, I might consider your advice.

[Chris Holbrook]

So, you can count me in

Guy, it is a pleasure. I will PM you.

Anydbody else who wants to join in without posting here can PM me.

[Richard Angell]

Guy, Chris:

I'm thinking of using the GRAPHIC WINDOW as a canvas for an almost Windows-free GUI Forms builder, for use by people who either don't know or won't know Windows (I respect the reasons for both). It also has to be very simple to use. And simple to develop.

I'll aver here that Michael hit the nail on the head here. A large portion of the community here use both PBWin and PBCC. The right tool for the right job. PBWin can already handle much of what you will be re-inventing the wheel for. PBCC can be outfitted with tools from Perfect Sync. "Simple to use, simple to develop" sound nice on paper, but in practice, unless you are doing something really rudimentary, it is difficult to hit such a target. The GW is a WINDOW with a static child window. To go beyond PBCC's native command set, you will be in SDK windows programming style mode, where as in PBWin, the DDT command set can handle a significant portion of many developers needs without going there. Yet many of us have both compilers because we believe each tool has features which recommend them to particular jobs. I'd suggest Michael may have been alluding to this with his comment.

[Michael Mattias]

I think some of the 'code generator' vendors here have "point and click and drag and drop" products which eliminate coding of screens, or at least as much as you can eliminate it.

Of course, you could right now probably get a heck of deal on VB6. Try E-Bay.

[Chris Holbrook]

A large portion of the community here use both PBWin and PBCC.

I'm one of them. And PB Forms.

The right tool for the right job.

The job in this case is, as I said in the earlier post, devising tools to create simple GUI forms without doing any windows programming. This is no reflection on the quality of the PB Win product, which I'm very happy with, rather, it is a consequence of the impressive upgrade to PBCC in V5.

I have no qualms about writing SDK code to extend the capabilities of the PBCC GRAPHIC WINDOW to acheive the stated objective, that of creating a toolset or library of functions which enable the creation of simple GUI forms without the need for any sort of "M$ Windows programming". I expect that the result our efforts will be something which will have very basic controls (which will have to be coded in PBCC) and initially less functionality than say PB Forms, but requiring NO understanding of Windows on the part of the programmer who uses it. There's enough suffering in this world already.

MCM regarding forms designers/code generators, I rolled my own using PBWin using DDT and SDK techniques. I'm fairly sure that it would be less effort to write the click & drag stuff using PBCC's GRAPHIC WINDOW.

[Richard Angell]

"without doing any windows programming"

Windows programming? About all one can offer on this is to say that somewhere, sometime a serious GUI user is going to have to learn about callbacks, or respond to a GUI event that your generated callback has sent to some routine. Actually, once folks learn about Windows messaging, not a really difficult concept, they can become empowered to do more as needed. The devil in any GUI programming is always in the details. All that really happens is the substitution of learning "windows" programming to learning how to run the GUI handling functions your proposed designer would substitute in their stead. But hey, it's your time and money an they you get to support it.

It might be just as easy to create a well commented, but simple set of template files they could then plug their values into and functions onto .. and get their ball rolling right away.

[Chris Holbrook]

Actually, once folks learn about Windows messaging, they can become empowered...

Do I detect a missionary zeal here?

Perhaps the user I have in mind does not qualify as a "serious GUI user". For many people, Windows is an obstacle, not a way of life.

[Richard Angell]

and the rest of the quote was "to do more as needed". Figure that the root here is just like any programming, one must learn to use what ever necessary tool(s) there are to get the job done. After the suggested app, they still have to learn how to program the code generator app, even if it only with script commands, prop menus and mousing about.

Missionary zeal? Not necessarily. Just pointing out that a phobic fear of windows programming can extend beyond that "label" to any kind of programming. Just adding an advocacy that the end result might be far more complicated that just learning how to program a callback in the first place.