I wonder how many MS VB programmers would admit to preferring to write frm
text files rather than use the visual ui to develop their forms. The
graphical ui is one of the reasons I like VB so much. Until MW reaches that
standard as reflected by comments on this forum, I think I'll stick with
GCC.
Mitch
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Antos [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 1999 9:32 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: gcc vs anything else
>
> > 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.
>
>
