API access
Posted by: h <h@...>
the following is meant as an attempt to clarify my position regarding
the previous discussion in a different thread.
1.
FB is and has been a procedural language based on standard BASIC.
2.
One of the big advantages of FB is and has been the easy access of
(nearly) all (Toolbox/CARBON) API-routines provided by Apple (I
called this property "open") which allows us to produce professional
applications comparable to those coded e.g. in C.
3.
With FBtoC the life of FB has been prolonged because it allows us to
produce Universal Binaries. (Of course, there are other advantages of
FBtoC).
4.
FB is a great tool for those who wish to code following the
procedural approach and who do not, for whatever reason, like to use
C, FORTRAN etc.
5.
Presently, with FB and FBtoC, there is no need to know about C or any
other programming language to access CARBON API-routines.
6.
I see no need for an object-oriented FB because there exist already
enough OO-languages and I see no reason why an OO-FB should be easier
to learn or to use than for instance Java.
A
Suppose, for whatever reason, CARBON API-routines (mostly written in
C) are no longer provided by Apple, i.e. all API-routines are Cocoa
and must be accessed according to new and in general OO-conventions
(Obj-C).
B
Concerning FB there are apparently two ways to cope with this situation:
a) Make FB object-oriented in order to provide seamless
access of Cocoa API-routines.
b) Stay with strictly procedural FB by hiding the OO-calling
conventions etc. of Cocoa API-routines from the coder.
-------------------
Because of 6. there is no option Ba).
Because I doubt that option Bb) is realistic, i.e. I don't think we
shall see the same ease of API-access as we do presently, we face a
severe problem with FB.
(I very much should like to know how FORTRAN for the Mac copes with
the same problem.)
I've less doubts about option Bb) if one thinks of an implementation
of Standard BASIC that would require a very limited access of
API-routines (mainly IO and some drawing).
(I'm well aware that such a Standard BASIC can't compare with FB.)
-------------------
All that said, I very much hope the various question concerning my
view are answered. I'm aware that one need not share my view but this
is a different topic.
Best
--
Herbie
------------------------
<http://www.gluender.de>
PS:
Max, I very well understand that "object orientation" is your
territory but not everybody likes to live there. (As is known, I
changed to Java in 2005 when I realized that procedural coding on the
Mac will become increasingly problematic. In spring 2006 I've
attended an official Apple-workshop mainly dealing with Universal
Binaries and this event confirmed my decision to go OO.)
As you write, the MaxClass System started in the early 1990s when the
choice of _open_ OO-languages for the Mac was nearly non-existent (I
remember ProGraph). However, would you today still advocate for any
kind of OO-FB?