How do you use modern MS Windows GUIs (eg. ActiveX, .Net, Qt ...) with Modula2?

Hi,

until now I used to program the business application that I maintain
directly on Win32API. (with Stony Brook Modula 2). But now I think about
using a more modern lookung GUI.
Unfortunately there are no assistents for Modula 2 and all the interface
definitions are in other languages. (most often C++).

I think I am not the only Modula 2 programmer in this situation. How do
you handle this?
Regards
Wolfgang Greiner

On 2008-04-08, Wolfgang Greiner <wolfgang.Greiner@web.de> wrote:
> until now I used to program the business application that I maintain
> directly on Win32API. (with Stony Brook Modula 2). But now I think about
> using a more modern lookung GUI.
> Unfortunately there are no assistents for Modula 2 and all the interface
> definitions are in other languages. (most often C++).
>
> I think I am not the only Modula 2 programmer in this situation. How do
> you handle this?

I changed to Pascal/Delphi. Delphi is also slowly decreasing but still
potent.

I've thought about "selling out", and going C++ or even C#, but I have
trouble finding technologies on that side that last longer than a couple of
years above the winapi level. (winforms is dead, long live WPF, and the MFC
was never very friendly), so I postponed that again and stick to Delphi for
a few more years. The environment is very productive, and the rest is
reasonable to good.

For multiple platform stuff I use Lazarus (disclaimer: I'm involved with
FPC/Lazarus), but for me this is now more small GUIs, server apps and
utils.

Marco van de Voort wrote:

> On 2008-04-08, Wolfgang Greiner <wolfgang.Greiner@web.de> wrote:
>
>>until now I used to program the business application that I maintain
>>directly on Win32API. (with Stony Brook Modula 2). But now I think about
>>using a more modern lookung GUI.
>>Unfortunately there are no assistents for Modula 2 and all the interface
>>definitions are in other languages. (most often C++).
>>
>>I think I am not the only Modula 2 programmer in this situation. How do
>>you handle this?
>
>
> I changed to Pascal/Delphi. Delphi is also slowly decreasing but still
> potent.
>
> I've thought about "selling out", and going C++ or even C#, but I have
> trouble finding technologies on that side that last longer than a couple of
> years above the winapi level. (winforms is dead, long live WPF, and the MFC
> was never very friendly), so I postponed that again and stick to Delphi for
> a few more years. The environment is very productive, and the rest is
> reasonable to good.
>
> For multiple platform stuff I use Lazarus (disclaimer: I'm involved with
> FPC/Lazarus), but for me this is now more small GUIs, server apps and
> utils.
>
There's numerous nice builder packages for Fortran also with some even
having platform independent APIs. You can choose various styles from
"native look and feel" to Motif, etc. Not a large selection of styles,
but very easy to write "blend in" engineering apps. Some even have
better (easier) "callback" mechanisms than for example the Windows
native method.

--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

On 2008-04-08, Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> For multiple platform stuff I use Lazarus (disclaimer: I'm involved with
>> FPC/Lazarus), but for me this is now more small GUIs, server apps and
>> utils.
>>
> There's numerous nice builder packages for Fortran also with some even
> having platform independent APIs.

True. Stronger, every language has some wxwidget or qt or gtk portability
feature.

But Lazarus is native on win32/64/ce and OS X. And that matters for me.

And on the core win32 platform I can use something Wirthian, and large scale
commercially supported with a component market.

Only MS would be a stronger market partner, but as said, I don't like the
fact that they don't provide a long term stable visual library.

Marco van de Voort wrote:
> On 2008-04-08, Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>>For multiple platform stuff I use Lazarus (disclaimer: I'm involved with
>>>FPC/Lazarus), but for me this is now more small GUIs, server apps and
>>>utils.
>>>
>>
>>There's numerous nice builder packages for Fortran also with some even
>>having platform independent APIs.
>
>
> True. Stronger, every language has some wxwidget or qt or gtk portability
> feature.
>
> But Lazarus is native on win32/64/ce and OS X. And that matters for me.
>
> And on the core win32 platform I can use something Wirthian, and large scale
> commercially supported with a component market.
>
> Only MS would be a stronger market partner, but as said, I don't like the
> fact that they don't provide a long term stable visual library.
>
One I'm thinking of that is platform independent uses either the Windows
GDI or OPENGL, you get to choose without changing the application call
interface (same app-level API to call either GDI or OPENGL for
graphics). The "native look and feel" are achieved through direct Win32
API calls, not an emulation.

--

Gary Scott
mailto:garylscott@sbcglobal dot net

Fortran Library: http://www.fortranlib.com

Support the Original G95 Project: http://www.g95.org
-OR-
Support the GNU GFortran Project: http://gcc.gnu.org/fortran/index.html

If you want to do the impossible, don't hire an expert because he knows
it can't be done.

-- Henry Ford

On 2008-04-09, Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> True. Stronger, every language has some wxwidget or qt or gtk portability
>> feature. But Lazarus is native on win32/64/ce and OS X. And that matters
>> for me.
>>
> One I'm thinking of that is platform independent uses either the Windows
> GDI or OPENGL, you get to choose without changing the application call
> interface (same app-level API to call either GDI or OPENGL for
> graphics).

Well, Lazarus does something like that yes. However that requires
compromises. The opposite is to paint every widget everywhere by hand, and
thus have an alien feel on all platforms.

> The "native look and feel" are achieved through direct Win32 API calls,
> not an emulation.

Correct. And same with e.g. Carbon on OS X.

"Wolfgang Greiner" <wolfgang.Greiner@web.de> wrote in message
news:ftehng$a85$00$1@news.t-online.com...
> Hi,
>
> until now I used to program the business application that I maintain
> directly on Win32API. (with Stony Brook Modula 2). But now I think about
> using a more modern lookung GUI.
> Unfortunately there are no assistents for Modula 2 and all the interface
> definitions are in other languages. (most often C++).
>
> I think I am not the only Modula 2 programmer in this situation. How do
> you handle this?
> Regards
> Wolfgang Greiner
>

I take your point - even the latest Modula-2 IDE is nothing compared to
NetBeans or similar.

However, my own opinion is that Modula2 is dying. I first came across it
back in 1992 and I really really like it. It was the first language I ever
learned "formally". If I were writing something and wanted to demonstrate
algorithm design in a purely technical sense, I'd use Modula2. However
those situations rarely arise unless you're writing a programming textbook
so my advice would be to strongly consider porting / rewriting your code to
another language.

Modula2 is great - a brilliant heavily typed language that makes sensible
use of the library concept. Trouble is - things move on - no more so
evidently than in programming and I'd suggest another "heavily typed"
language and java would be my suggestion.

Saluton!

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 22:46:47 +0100, "lk" wrote:
> However, my own opinion is that Modula2 is dying. I first came across it
[...]
> so my advice would be to strongly consider porting / rewriting your code to
> another language.

Of course, that's the reason Modula2 is dying.
(C as another, even older language seems still to be going
quite strong.)

Ad Astra!
JuL

--
Jürgen ,,JuL'' Lerch / L'état, c'est toi. (Moi)
jynwyn@gmx.de /

In article <48027f44$0$26082$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>,
lk <gofyself@wrong.address.com> wrote:

[snip]

> However, my own opinion is that Modula2 is dying. I first came across it
> back in 1992 and I really really like it. It was the first language I ever
> learned "formally". If I were writing something and wanted to demonstrate
> algorithm design in a purely technical sense, I'd use Modula2. However
> those situations rarely arise unless you're writing a programming textbook
> so my advice would be to strongly consider porting / rewriting your code to
> another language.

> Modula2 is great - a brilliant heavily typed language that makes sensible
> use of the library concept. Trouble is - things move on - no more so
> evidently than in programming and I'd suggest another "heavily typed"
> language and java would be my suggestion.

Java may be a typed language - but I would hardly agree with
'heavily'!

Keith

--
Inspired!