Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread Mandolyte
Also https://github.com/cznic/wm... It actually implements an event driven model. There's a demo that's easy to see what it can do. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread Seb Binet
FYI, you may also want to have a look at tcell: https://github.com/gdamore/tcell it was very easy to spin up a few tools with it. -s On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:42 PM, Egon wrote: > On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 20:37:55 UTC+2, bia...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> If you already

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread Egon
On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 20:37:55 UTC+2, bia...@gmail.com wrote: > > If you already knew theres an existing library, why write a new one? > It's a proof-of-concept not a library -- libraries take several magnitudes more effort. I've written, I guess 7+ different versions of UI

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread biatche
If you already knew theres an existing library, why write a new one? Self-challenge of some sort? :) It's really something though. On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 1:51:20 AM UTC+8, Egon wrote: > > On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 19:35:21 UTC+2, bia...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> Did you write that

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread Egon
On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 19:35:21 UTC+2, bia...@gmail.com wrote: > > Did you write that code just for this thread? > Yeah, had 2hrs of fun with it :) > I really appreciate it. That gives me options. It runs and its possible > for me to setup something based on this. > > On Tuesday,

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread biatche
Did you write that code just for this thread? I really appreciate it. That gives me options. It runs and its possible for me to setup something based on this. On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 11:10:44 PM UTC+8, Egon wrote: > > On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 14:03:13 UTC+2, Ronny Bangsund wrote:

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread Egon
On Tuesday, 29 November 2016 14:03:13 UTC+2, Ronny Bangsund wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 7:11:57 AM UTC+1, bia...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> I've been wondering how I should setup input fields. should termbox >> be responsible for it? or termui as you suggested (this seems

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-29 Thread Ronny Bangsund
On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 7:11:57 AM UTC+1, bia...@gmail.com wrote: > > I've been wondering how I should setup input fields. should termbox be > responsible for it? or termui as you suggested (this seems more for > monitoring...) or even gocui? > I've tested termui and GOCUI

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-28 Thread biatche
The above is what the present DOS program looks like. Within each section are simply input/text fields. This certain old man who wants this done doesn't want a

Re: [go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-28 Thread Jason Playne
If you really must use a terminal ui - maybe try https://github.com/gizak/termui it seems quite nice. if you can make people SSH into your app (using some golang ssh server magic) that might be a way to go as well. Otherwise go for a web based solution (as layout would be much easier) On 29

[go-nuts] Re: need library suggestions on writing a record program

2016-11-28 Thread Rick
I've written a small program for work in gocui and am quite happy with the results. On Monday, 28 November 2016 08:12:35 UTC-8, bia...@gmail.com wrote: > > i'd like to rewrite an old dos medical patient record program in go for a > friend. its not a complex program by any means > > i'd probably