> No one else seems to pick up on this, so I'll continue to beat
>my horse into the ground: having a visual UI builder (MW Constructor)
>has some massive advantages over a text-compilation based one
>(PilRC). If I actually had a system that MW ran on, I'd buy it
>immediately, as the $360 would be very quickly recouped in UI
>development time.
ack. the "massive advantages" are basically that it's wysiwyg, and that
it's quick and easy.
i use CW, but i so strongly prefer to use script-based resource compilers
that i wrote a tool to link PilRC-generated resources into a .PRC built by
CW.
a script-based resource compiler has several advantages:
- human readable format
- easy localization from a single script
- difference-based source control systems work with it
- i have complete control over constants, macros, etc
- i can use macros in the script files
- i can do a search-and-replace over the entire script whenever i want to
- i can run the script thru any arbitrary number of preprocessors that do
whatever i want
- i can #include scripts or headers (PilRC natively understands only a
limited syntax for included files, but by using a preprocessor i remove that
limitation)
- i can position controls relatively to each other such that when i nudge
one control, several others automatically nudge themselves as well
- the source code to PilRC is free and so i can add arbitrary features or
fix bugs without having to wait for an official commercial release or patch
- and more. these are just the ones immediately off the top of my head
some of these may seem unlikely, but i commonly use and rely on all of them
(including running things thru preprocessors). it's very difficult for me
to imagine doing serious commerical work without using script-based
resources. obviously people do it all the time. i've been there, and i
don't want to go back, though. YMMV.
