"How about using a C++ interface generator like SWIG? http://www.swig.org/exec.html http://is.muni.cz/th/256594/fi_m/thesis.pdf (note I haven't used this, I've just been browsing around for interest)
cheers -ben" its not that simple. Swig is like a template thingy that generates wrapper automagically for programming languages. In this case it would require that Pharo supports C++ libs in some way which I think it does not. For example Swing is quite popular with python , cpython to be exactly , but cpython has an API for wrapping both C and C++ code. So you need a language that already offers support for C++ libs in order to be able to use SWIG. "Depends on what you want you mean by solid. For exploratory visual programming, it's a solid design. For building GUIs from standard components and a clear separation of responsibilities between a morphs constituent parts (*parts* you say? who needs that, we're all morphs!), it's much less solid than say, MVC/MVP. Cheers, Henry " I am nowhere near to classify myself as a "morphic coder" but I am not a big fan of MVC . The idea of dividing an element to 3 things Model , View and Controller and essentially having 3 objects for every graphic element does not resonate with me very well. But in the end as I say I am not in a position to compare it with MVC libs, and I definetly dont like the design of some of the elements. Treemorph looks weird to me, for example it has a selection index but index apply only for visible / not expanded components which for me defys the meaning of having a tree hierarchy moph in the first place. Progress bar has not been easy to figure out either. What I do like about morphic is that everything is a morph and you can make compex guis out of very simple moprhs and the fact that you can do that by mouse. And of course visual coding too. If it was in my hand completely I would made all those morph as simple as possible. I get the feeling that each morph tries to solve too many problems. "Agreed. This week I tried to do morphic the second time in my life. There are a lot of things that I consider to be annoying but then it is also easy to combine and display stuff. Took me not too much time to have a visual representation of my scanner cache tool" exactly and I really like your visual , shows that morphic is plenty capable of making very modern graphics. I see even anti-aliasing which is very nice. I agree that Mars can play a crucial role for people who are already familiar with GTK and Cocoa , certainly it will be one more motivation to use pharo. So definetly Morphic and Mars can hapilly coexist together. Its kinda ironic you know, I was an ex cpython coder, I would love to have a cpython GUI API but there is none. Even on 1/10th of the capabilities of Morphic. All popular GUI frameworks for cpython are C/C++ wrapped libs. And to make things even funnier the standard gui that cpython comes with is called Tkinter and even though it is made in a scripting language its not python , its TK. And cpython is like what 100 times more popular to pharo, 1000 ? So yes I am glad Pharo has moprhic and that is so deep , even if it has its quirks. Actually besides TK I dont know of another dynamic language that has a GUI api written in the language that uses it. And mind you Tkinter is nowhere near Morphic. So definetly shows that Morphic is quite an achievenment. -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/New-Mars-examples-Package-Browser-and-Test-Runner-tp4709937p4710323.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
