[Mono-list] RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the
Miguel de Icaza
11 Oct 2003 16:47:50 -0400
> > Maybe you are not familiar with it, but take my word, it is
> > radically different. Both at the rendering level (Drawing) and at the
> > toolkit level (Windows.Forms).
> I don't agree. The drawing primitives are the same and all they've done is
> replaced handles with classes. The API is actually identical to the 8 year
> old WFC classes from J++. It's the same non-MVC, ancient, outdated way of
> writing UIs. Appropriate for quick drag and drop UIs while making it
> difficult and inefficient to write anything more advanced.
Again, I do not believe that *anything* on the framework above the ECMA
standard is particularly new. But singling out Windows.Forms over the
rest because "its a thin wrapper" is intellectual dishonesty.
The same can be said of pretty much everything else.
And in any case, WFC from J++ was a Microsoft invention, not a public
one. Events and properties used in a toolkit is definitely taking
advantage of a feature that never existed before in the Win32 API.
Some things which are massive departures from Win32:
* You do not have to do translate message/dispatch message.
* You do not need a Wndproc method for each window class.
* You do not have to register a window class.
* The Win32 API is hidden for the most part, in fact, the gtk#
and pnet implementations are proofs that the API is sufficiently
different that it is far from a "thin wrapper".
I dont think its patentable, but if you dont think this is, then
nothing else is. But being selective about what you consider to be
thin-wrapper, and what you don't is just an exercise in deception.