Well, as I've said before, if you can rework some of the C++ tutorials I've done in OIOIC, I'd be interested in comparing them.
Because I code in Delphi and C++ regularly, one of the things I often experiment with is various third party components/libraries. Every major one I've encountered has detailed sample programs that are designed to illustrate the use of each feature the component/library offers.
For Delphi, a great example of this is TeeChart. An old version of Teechart is included with Delphi, but more advanced versions are available if you want to purchase them. Part of the files you get is a variety of .exe's with source code that clearly demonstrate the various options available with each chart component. This is in addition to extensive documentation.
When I was recently looking for GUI libraries for C++, one of the sample programs I found over and over again was a minesweeper clone. Ultimate++, wxWidgets, QT, and others all implement "standard" sample programs to illustrate what their widgets look like and how to create them in code. Ultimate++ takes great pride in its code efficiency, for example.
It is the process of reviewing sample code that helps people decide whether a technology will be helpful to them or not. Comparisons with similar technologies (VB vs Delphi), libraries (wxWidgets vs Ultimate++ vs QT), etc is a huge part of getting people to "buy in" to what you have to offer.
A simple example of this would be Delphi vs VB. I view Delphi and VB as very similar in regards to what they can do, code efficiency, etc. VB was marketed as "programming for everyone", whereas Delphi was marketed as a serious application development language. The reality is that Delphi is just as easy as VB, and more robust than VB6 ever was. Of course, "easy" programming got a lot of interest and Microsoft almost killed Borland in the development market for PCs.
I encourage you to make sample programs for comparison. My reaction to what you have with OIOIC is "C++, Java, C#, Delphi, etc all do this better. Why would I use it?" Unless you can demonstrate the advantage of OIOIC, I suspect many people will react the same way.
Something else that may impact how programmers view OIOIC is the style it uses. To me, it is horrible on many levels. Books like Amazon.com: C Elements of Style: The Programmer's Style Manual for Elegant C and C++ Programs: Steve Oualline: Books and resources like C Elements of Style impact many programmers. Since there are many elements of good C style that are bad C++ style and I use C++, that may be part of the issue. You should definitely make sure your OIOIC code has good C style, however.
I have created WGI based on OIOIC. Now I issue the Demo project of WGI 1.0.0. Here to download the Demo project source code:Downloads - oic-wgi - Project Hosting on Google Code
What WGI? WGI is doing what MFC has done, to encapsulate API, BUT WGI uses OIOIC, instead of C++.
I would definitely prefer to do that using C++ and wxWidgets.
to download WGI 1.0.2 Downloads - oic-wgi - Project Hosting on Google Code
node WDialog ---> corresponding MFC's CDialog
node WMenu ---> corresponding MFC's CMenu
node WButton ---> corresponding MFC's CButton
node WStatic ---> corresponding MFC's CStatic
node WEdit ---> corresponding MFC's CEdit and CIPAddressCtrl
node WScrollBar ---> corresponding MFC's CScrollBar
node WSlider ---> corresponding MFC's CSlider and CProgressCtrl
node WComboBox ---> corresponding MFC's CComboBox and CComboBoxEx
other are base node.
![]()
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks