I need to implement a chart in my VB6 app. Specifically, it is a "child growth chart" like the one from the World Health Organization - see attachment.
I use Microsoft Chart Control 6.0 in my app, but the experience is always wholly unpleasant, and the results looks nothing short of the 90s.
I saw Schmidt's RC5 uses Cairo and that means modern graphics, however there is no documentation for RC5 and the front page of the RC5 website hasn't been updated since 2013. Since implementing this chart will require learning whatever library I use, I don't really want to invest in a project that seems to have been dead for close to a decade, unless it's that great and worth it.
1. Is there a way of using Cairo without needing to use RC5?
2. Is there a simple alternative solution to implementing a modern-looking graph?
3. Is RC5 actively maintained?
4. The RC5 website has no documentation (tutorial != documentation) and does not explain what each of the 5 DLLs do. I want a minimal setup to draw graphs using cairo - which DLLs would I have to use?
P.S. Regarding SQLite. My app uses MariaDB (client-server), so I don't think I need SQLite support, unless it offers some benefit as an intermediate layer for data storage?
1. RC5 has been constantly updated. Olaf has provided a lot of code examples in vbForums, and has been active in this forum, responding to various questions about RC5/RC6.
2. RC6 has been released, the latest version is 2021-02-02 (Olaf always seems to forget to update the latest date of downloading files).
3. RC5/RC6 is extremely stable, just as stable as those mature and excellent commercial software.
4. Many people here have used RC5/RC6 for more than 10 or even 15 years.
5. You can search for a lot of examples of RC5.Cairo drawing in vbForums.
I hear what the OP is saying though. The points he raised are the same reasons that prevented me diving into RC5. When next to nothing is documented and the website is so obsolete it gives the visitor an impression that nothing is happening in regard to RC5, the turn-off is immediate.
I dived into GDI+ and Direct3D and dipped my toe into VB.NET instead with some surety that the knowledge gained would be still useful in the future. I really do want to dive into RC5 but something tells me not to, whilst the roadmap is so obscure and when what little information available on the forum, is certainly not for the relative newbs like me.
I don't want to diminish RC5 in any way but Olaf should take it as a heavy hint that for mere mortals like myself, documentation is the absolute minimum requirement to be taken seriously. A framework without documentation - Seriously?
For all those who want to learn vbRichClient, they only need to master the search skills in vbForums. (The search function of vbForums is really bad, it's totally unable to meet my quality standards for software). The following is my search experience:
1.Search Single Content Type
2.Keywords(s): chart (search Entire Posts)
3.User Name: Schmidt
4. AdditionalOptions
(1) Search in Forums(s): Visual Basic 6 and Earlier
Or
(2) Search in Forums(s): Codebank - Visual Basic 6 and Earlier
5.Show Results as: Posts
Edit:
In addition, if you replace the search keyword with "Cairo" or "Surface", you can search for all Cairo examples. When you need to learn the usage of a certain class in RC5/RC6, you only need to replace the search keyword with the corresponding RC5/RC6 class name.
Note: It's best to remove the c character before the class name that needs to be searched, for example, change "cCairoSurface" to "CairoSurface"
Note: "User Name: Schmidt" is a necessary search option. At the same time, try to set the option "Show Results as: Posts"
Last edited by SearchingDataOnly; Feb 18th, 2021 at 08:35 AM.
Unfortunately, search...only, that is not really the solution to the problem, your suggestion is a mere workaround to the problem.
If you have a site it is intended to give a message, the message that the site inadvertently promotes is that RC5 is abandonware.
The message received by potential users is then compounded by an obvious lack of documentation. That further underpins the message with the idea that the product was never really completed to any extent, if the documentation does not exist.
If some forum posts are meant to change this message, they simply do not. It would be better if the site did not exist at all and that RC5 was instead present in the codebank (if the forum is mean to act as the repository of documentation for RC5).
Olaf does his RC5 no favours with the current state of the site dating back to 2013.
What is really required is an update to the site, an overhaul of the documentation and a roadmap for future development so that the potential user does not worry about another abandonment (VB's reputation is tarnished by abandonment and potential users have a potential for worry for good and valid reasons).
What is really required is an update to the site, an overhaul of the documentation and a roadmap for future development so that the potential user does not worry about another abandonment (VB's reputation is tarnished by abandonment and potential users have a potential for worry for good and valid reasons).
Unfortunately, search...only, that is not really the solution to the problem, your suggestion is a mere workaround to the problem.
If you have a site it is intended to give a message, the message that the site inadvertently promotes is that RC5 is abandonware.
The message received by potential users is then compounded by an obvious lack of documentation. That further underpins the message with the idea that the product was never really completed to any extent, if the documentation does not exist.
If some forum posts are meant to change this message, they simply do not. It would be better if the site did not exist at all and that RC5 was instead present in the codebank (if the forum is mean to act as the repository of documentation for RC5).
Olaf does his RC5 no favours with the current state of the site dating back to 2013.
What is really required is an update to the site, an overhaul of the documentation and a roadmap for future development so that the potential user does not worry about another abandonment (VB's reputation is tarnished by abandonment and potential users have a potential for worry for good and valid reasons).
In my opinion, only using RC5/RC6 to make some famous software products can really promote vbRichClient.
I'm using RC6 and Scintilla to make a free software similar to Notepad++ (but it's not open source because it's a subsidiary/derivative product of one of my commercial software).
But the premise of my release of this software is that this software is better(much better) than Notepad++. If my software cannot achieve this, I won't release this software.
Last edited by SearchingDataOnly; Feb 18th, 2021 at 08:50 AM.
That was a bit silly jb. If the site were mine I would face the criticism and update the site. IF I had put the work in that Olaf has into RC5 I would realise that the documentation and the site really ARE the demonstration of the usability and applicability of the code in 2021. That at least should be obvious to anyone. Having an understanding of the product is an essential requirement for supplying the documentation. Perhaps you'd like to in this case?
I have two products I will eventually release (hopefully), both are fully documented already despite only being 90% complete. The documents formed the requirements documentation and were updated as the product evolved. When the products are complete the documentation will be instantly ready.
However, I suppose my skills derived from being a Project Manager rather than a programmer (whose skills never quite seem to lie in documentation), so it may be normal for me to perceive documentation as being a minimal requirement for all programs.
In my opinion, only using RC5/RC6 to make some famous software products can really promote vbRichClient.
I'm not denying that, however, it has nothing to do with the site being out of date and having no documentation. It will put people off making that decision to jump into RC5.
The moon is made of green cheese.
Originally Posted by SearchingDataOnly
But the premise of my release of this software is that this software is better(much better) than Notepad++. If my software cannot achieve this, I won't release this software.
Neither of these has anything to do with any of the above.
Neither of these has anything to do with any of the above.
Yes, I just don't want some people to take this to laugh at me for telling a lie. My current work efficiency is only 20% of what it was 10 years ago, so even if I plan to develop a small software like Notepad++, I don't have 100% confidence in success.
Last edited by SearchingDataOnly; Feb 18th, 2021 at 09:10 AM.
Yes, I just don't want some people to take this to laugh at me for telling a lie. My current work efficiency is only 20% of what it was 10 years ago, so even if I plan to develop a small software like Notepad++, I don't have a 100% chance of success.
Nobody thinks you are lying. My suggestion to you would be to collate what documentation exists for RC5 and to pull it together for future usage by potential users. You seem to know a little about it as a user. Certainly more than most.
Maybe, but it was partly in jest (hence the winky face emoji). Every once in a while someone asks Olaf for the moon, and I think that's silly, so I chime in with a quip.
Olaf's time is already stretched, and since he offers the library (for free), frequently helps users here and by private emails (for free), posts interesting and useful RC5/RC6 demo code here (for free), I think it's hard to demand much more of him.
I guess it is what it is. In it's current state, RC5/RC6 is for those who learn by doing & reading code vs. those who learn by reading documentation/specifications. That might change one day, but if you tend to lean on documentation for support, then I think using RC5/RC6 will be a bit of a struggle, and as such it is not a good fit for you.
No-one is demanding anything of him. No-one really cares if his site is out of date, it just means less potential users.
The idea of someone using an undocumented framework that seems to have had no updates since 2013 and whose website appears to make the product seem obsolete is something, that if fixed, would make his software more usable - seems to be an admirable thing to suggest.
JB I don't need to learn RC5, it was an example as how to OTHER users will be put off as the OP is suggesting -
and your condescending attitude is both annoying and unnecessary or perhaps, forgive me, you really did miss the point altogether...
Maybe I have missed the point, but I'm not being condescending. I am being critical of your criticism though, which I think is fair. I guess I don't see what's admirable in stating the obvious. Of course it would be better if RC6 had a professionally designed website with fully searchable MSDN-style documentation, an actively moderated and bustling user forum, copious sample code, and a 1-800 support #, but we've got what we've got. For some of us that's more than good enough, and for those that find it lacking that's fine - as you've discovered there are other options like GDI+ and Direct3D that fit your needs better and that's great.
No-one is demanding anything of him. No-one really cares if his site is out of date, it just means less potential users.
The idea of someone using an undocumented framework that seems to have had no updates since 2013 and whose website appears to make the product seem obsolete is something, that if fixed, would make his software more usable - seems to be an admirable thing to suggest.
JB I don't need to learn RC5, it was an example as how to OTHER users will be put off as the OP is suggesting -
and your condescending attitude is both annoying and unnecessary or perhaps, forgive me, you really did miss the point altogether...
After Olaf's new compiler is released, I believe that many volunteers will join in to help write document and build website. Now, what we have to do is to use RC6, test RC6, and make some suggestions or answer some questions about RC5/RC6.
Even if Olaf's new compiler will never be released, learning, testing and using RC5/RC6 will still benefit users a lot.
In my opinion, now is not the time to dramatically expand the users of RC5/RC6, it is just the preparation stage(the preparation stage before the great work is released). If a developer can master the use of RC5/RC6 through the sample code in vbForums, then he is contributing to the advancement of VB6.
Nah, what I consider "silly" instead is, when somebody knows:
- that a large Framework exists that is actively maintained (for over a decade now)
- which is battlehardened, without any open bugs (running in thousands of installations)
- which protects your user-code-investments because of:
... guaranteed backward-compatibility (regarding code, written against older framework-versions)
... and because RC5/6 code will run unchanged also with a potential new compiler (even on other platforms)
- and the Author apparently willing to teach you even in 101-sessions (in the sole, big remaining VB-Community-Forum on this planet)
So, if you look at the last (underlined) point - I cannot really understand anyones complaints about "missing documentation".
No, not in this Forum, where I usually respond within a day or so.
For example, I was "ready to continue" this thread here: https://www.vbforums.com/showthread....-Alpha-Support
(prepared to answer all your further questions about the concrete Topic of "Alpha-Forms and Widgets") -
but you never "asked anything" after the author provided you not only:
- with descriptions of the concrete topic and the involved Framework-Classes
- but also with concrete (tailored) examples for a concrete usecase
So, your "not diving in" (despite having a tailored example to explore, and the Author "at hand for answering any questions") tells me,
that the "missing documentation" is clearly an excuse to avoid learning "something uncomfortable" (if you don't lie to yourself).
I think this whole "avoidance-thing" (blaming documentation, despite having ObjecExplorer and Intellisense in your IDE) -
has more to do with the way the RC-Classes "force" you to work with VB6 in a (so far) "uncomfortable",
but much more "professional, class-based-manner" (different from the way "you normally work" with "Forms and Helper-OCXes").
its not abandoned and theres tons of examples in the vbforums, just search RC5/RC6 and 99%, if not close to 100% its RC5/6 that uses Cairo.
so, if you want to use Cairo, its better to use the framework from Olaf.
graphics, we have GDI32/GDI+ that has tons of examples and can do a lot, and we have Direct2D/DirectX/OpelGL that we can use and theres a bit of examples to get started, everything found in this forum.
so, you want to create something modern and that looks good? we got that, theres a lot in the CodeBank, tons of sources you can use, to improve on, well, everything.
using RC5/6 will give you "the complete thing", since its a framework offering "a lot", but sure, you will need to learn it and deal with the package that need a bit of work, if you want register-free or setup.
but of course, everything needs work. the modern look will not just popup on its own. you need to code it, work on the ui-graphics.
its not just about the engine/framework but about hard work.
1. Is there a way of using Cairo without needing to use RC5?
Yes, there is a "flat StdCall-compiled Cairo-lib" on GitHub.
Originally Posted by OldClock
2. Is there a simple alternative solution to implementing a modern-looking graph?
The only simple alternative to RC5 (to render modern looking graphs), is RC6... (SCNR)
Originally Posted by OldClock
3. Is RC5 actively maintained?
Yes - and a newer version (RC6) is already out for testing.
Originally Posted by OldClock
4. The RC5 website has no documentation (tutorial != documentation) and does not explain what each of the 5 DLLs do.
I'll describe the RC6-package instead here:
- RC6.dll (COM-lib with all the framework-classes)
- cairo_sqlite.dll (flat lib, mainly containing cairo and sqlite, but also a few other libs like zlib, jpeg-turbo a.s.o)
- DirectCOM.dll (regfree-COM-Class-instantiation support and VB6-threading-support)
- WebView2Loader.dll (COM-wrapper for the new Edge-Chromium-based MS-WebView-Control)
- RC6Widgets.dll (a COM-lib containing Widgets for the RC6-Widget- and Form-Engine - quite similar to Krools project, but platform-independent)
Originally Posted by OldClock
I want a minimal setup to draw graphs using cairo - which DLLs would I have to use?
In a minimal Setup, obviously the "official cairo-flat-dll" (about 1.5 MB or so, IIRC)
Note, that this flat-dll is "fully documented" at the cairo.org website -
and BTW, also Direct2D (which you could use alternatively) is "fully documented" at the MS-website.
Ok, that said - now you could test "how comfortable and fast" you will come up with a working Chart-rendering:
- when using the cairo-flat-dll (fully documented)
- when using Direct2D (fully documented)
- or when alternatively using (adapting) a working Demo I've just put into the CodeBank
.. -> https://www.vbforums.com/showthread....t-HelperClass)
Please feel free, to ask any questions - in case something in the Demo above is not clear.
Well, I guess I made my point regarding "documentation", whilst still answering the questions of the Opener-Posting...
The point that you are all missing is that the website implies abandonment and it also implies no documentation by the lack of that documentation.
That's what websites do. They tell people something. How can that message be confusing to you?
Simply turn off the site if you want it to stop saying the same incorrect message forever.
- or you could update it to tell people what you just said above! It isn't me that needs the message, it is the people visiting your site!
It isn't me that needs the message, it is the people visiting your site!
I'm fully aware of the website looking a bit outdated ...
(I think of it as: "offering a download-point for the libs" - and not much more).
But it's you who is still missing the whole point of the RC-package.
- It is *not* "a product" (which I'd need to "advertise" or "position properly in a market")
- it is *a project* (driven by me, but also by a handful of other VB6-devs, who all have the sourcecode)
- it is thought, to benefit the VB-community (aiming to provide modern runtime-classes for a new IDE+compiler, whoever comes up first with something like that)
- and the community (what is left of it) is *here in this forum*
- there is substantial time-constraints on my end, so I'm not able to push the project as fast as I'd like (due to working a daily job)
- the website itself therefore does not see "much love" (but as said - it is not necessary, because the community is here)
HTH
Olaf
Last edited by Schmidt; Feb 18th, 2021 at 12:24 PM.
The point that you are all missing is that the website implies abandonment and it also implies no documentation by the lack of that documentation.
I agree that the website is dated, and I think Olaf would agree with this too. I think you're missing the point that he's not using it for the kind of messaging you think he is. It's primarily a vehicle to distribute the binaries these days, something he's not allowed to do here (which is why you won't find it in the codebank). I also think that given the reality that his time is very limited, most of us that use RC6 are quite happy that he spends that time working on new stuff for the library (like the new charting classes, WebView, etc...) as opposed to making the website shinier.
There have been many lovely websites come and go that have proposed awesome looking new frameworks, IDEs, etc... but they've all turned out to be vapourware. The RC6 site might look bad by comparison, but the tool provided there is available and works today. I've been using it for 15 years or so (in it's various earlier incarnations) to develop software that pays my bills and feeds my family. If I have to choose between one of those nice looking websites with promises of glorious stuff to come vs. RC5/RC6 that comes from a basic and dated website, I know what choice I'll make every time.
That said, I think a nicer website is something that some of us in the community could take on if Olaf would want us to. I'd happily offer my services in this area as a way to give something back to the project a bit.
Well, we are all very well adjusted then... and we can sit back and enjoy the fruits of our labours.
PS. I'd be happy to help too but I feel what I could offer would be minimal. Some advice as to content perhaps but it is probably best just to say - fix your site!
PS. I'd be happy to help too but I feel what I could offer would be minimal.
Some advice as to content perhaps but it is probably best just to say - fix your site!
As said, "fixing the site" is not a priority (when you really think about the RC-framework as the community-project it is meant to be).
As for "I'd be happy to help"... what about following your own advice - ...
which in other threads was: "Stay positive, don't talk down the efforts of others who try to ensure a future for VB6...".
So, we have a project here, which (besides other support-classes):
- primarily aims at providing "the visual parts" of a modern VB6-successor
- and that in a platform-independent manner (by re-implementing a modern Form- and Control-engine behind a new abstraction-layer)
The above is, what I think not everybody has fully understood what it means (with regards to a new compiler).
Let me give you an example:
- Wouldn't it be nice, when you could port the current code you invested into your RocketDock-Project
- over to a new VB6-compiler with minimal efforts (minimal or no changes on your existing VB6-sources)?
I think, you'd be very interested in that.
But sadly you have not prepared for it properly (despite the "hints and warnings" I've brought here in discussions over the last 6 years or so).
See, when the new (VB6-compatible) TwinBasic-compiler will see the light of day (in the next two or three weeks I assume),
your whole RocketDock-VB6-Project will not work.
Why?
Because TwinBasic will be VB6-compatible, but then only supporting *.cls and *.bas modules
(so, no *.frm, no *.ctl no "external OCXes").
All you will have when it comes out, is:
- a Sub Main() which provides the starting-point of your TwinBasic-executable (in a module)
- and the ability, to hang in "additional Code from VB6 *.cls modules)
So, to show "a Window" (I deliberately avoid the term "Form"), you will have to resort to:
- "C-Style Window-Creation via Windows-API"
- "C-Style CommonControls-adding" (no "proper Events there" - only SubClassed Win-Messages to aid you)
The above will be surely doable with the TwinBasic-compiler -
but your "Rocket-Dock-Sources" are totally incompatible to what's now required by TwinBasic to produce an "Executable with a GUI".
If you'd have "followed well-meant advice" in the thread I gave a link to already: https://www.vbforums.com/showthread....-Alpha-Support
then the whole story would be entirely different, because:
- the RC-Form- and Widget-Engine is fully compatible with the current requirements of TwinBasic
- because your GUI would be implemented already in "only *.bas and *.cls" modules
- meaning: immediate 1:1 copy&pasting into the TwinBasic-IDE, without changing a single line of your existing Code-investments
(and on top of that, your unchanged code would already be platform-independent - ready to run on Linux, as soon as TwinBasic offers such a platform-support in their upcoming compiler-versions).
That's what I was trying to "pound into your heads", whenever you had the feeling "OMG, please - not more of this RC-advertising".
Well, I will certainly give you proof for all that, as soon as TwinBasic comes out -
but never say, I did not try to "warn (or remind) you" (over all these years, I'm active in this forum, looking for more support).
I'm sure the OP is very pleased with all this helpful discussion.
Well, the OPs questions were fully answered in #19 already.
(can't help it when everytime the RC-framework is mentioned - the discussion goes "overboard" in a totally "unhelpful manner").
Originally Posted by OptionBase1
Looking forward to Notepad++++++++++
Not really sure, what you mean there - but probably the "yet missing Form-Designer"...
(which is BTW already integrated into the RC6-lib, only requiring about 150 lines of "surrounding code" or so,
to bring it to live in a new RC6-based IDE-Project).
And another additional 100 lines would already provide a *.frm importer,
which maps the VB6 intrinsic Controls to existing Widget-Classes.
All really easy to do by "community-members, who'd really try to help"...
Well, the OPs questions were fully answered in #19 already.
(can't help it when everytime the RC-framework is mentioned - the discussion goes "overboard" in a totally "unhelpful manner").
My snark was not at all directed at you.
Also,
Originally Posted by OptionBase1
Looking forward to Notepad++++++++++
Originally Posted by Schmidt
Not really sure, what you mean there
References this:
Originally Posted by SearchingDataOnly
I'm using RC6 and Scintilla to make a free software similar to Notepad++ (but it's not open source because it's a subsidiary/derivative product of one of my commercial software).
But the premise of my release of this software is that this software is better(much better) than Notepad++. If my software cannot achieve this, I won't release this software.
Although, I might not have used enough +'s for it in my earlier post.
1. Is there a way of using Cairo without needing to use RC5?
Yes. You could install this Add-in and use most of the original C-libraries without any wrappers. This is the cairo.dll with the flat api example usage. Sqlite. Just put the original dll binaries to the project directory.
You could use GDI+ as well without any additional libraries.
Last edited by The trick; Feb 18th, 2021 at 03:42 PM.
Also,
[Notepad++++]
References this: I'm using RC6 and Scintilla to make a free software similar to Notepad++ ...
Yeah, the way SearchingDataOnly (dreammanor) tends to "go off on a tangent" (due to impatience),
is sometimes surprising to me as well.
@SearchingDataOnly
I'm currently about to finish a new cwEditor-SyntaxEditor-Widget, which was implemented "from scratch"...
- not using anything scintilla-like lib
- instead it is based on "visual inheritance" of a cwVList-Control
...(which does all the heavy lifting with regards to "scrolling, selections and stuff", saving a lot of code-lines in the new widget)
I'll post it into the CodeBank next week - and I'd welcome yours (or anybodys) help,
to drive its functionality further along, based on that initial version.
Same goes for the Form-Designer-Project (which I also plan, to place in the CodeBank for "advancement by the community").
Hopefully the advent of the up- and coming TwinBasic-compiler will provide a "breath of fresh air" -
making the purpose of the RC6 more "graspable by tackling concrete tasks", everybody can see the results of
(instead of "talking in circles about stuff, not yet really understood - due to missing experience with it").
Just put the original dll binaries to the project directory.
Which then would not be much different from:
"Just put the original RC6-libs into your project-directory" of course.
With the difference, that using "the flat libs" will:
- require significantly more code in ones implementations
- taking proper care of handle-destruction to "not leak"
- not sparing one the task, to "ship the App with a few Dlls"
- the only advantage remaining, that one will save "about 1MB in his App-Deployment-Zip"
@Schmidt,
The benefit you forgot to mention is open-source lib usage without any 3rd party close-source wrappers. Don't think I'm not against RC5/6 just suggest an alternative.
@Schmidt,
The benefit you forgot to mention is open-source lib usage without any 3rd party close-source wrappers. Don't think I'm not against RC5/6 just suggest an alternative.
Yep, the same "old stance" (which is not really helpful, when we really want to ensure "long-term-survival of VB6").
Because:
The RC6 is not really "closed" (other devs already have, or will receive my updated sources regularly at "milestone-points")
I've also mentioned several times already, that I plan to open-source it under LGPL, as soon as we have a "new IDE and compiler"
(but not earlier, to avoid "diversification" and "scattering of efforts" - which you entirely underestimate as a problem currently).
The reason to keep things closed *at the moment* would become more clear to you,
when you'd really look and read a few thread in the forum on freebasic.net,
where they started out with "a working compiler without proper, commonly accepted and runtime-provided GUI-support"...
The above being the sole reason, why there is not one, but 5-8 different "half-baked" IDE-attempts
(all based on different frameworks and GUI-helpers) - and also no clean, commonly usable drawing-examples in that Forum.
Also... (made evident by your posted GDI+ Demo-Gif)...
Your understanding of the term "open source" is very much different from how I understand it.
My understanding is related to "free software" (meaning, "open sources" which are "open, all the way through" (down to the OS-level)
A new VB6 (when you plan for long-term-survival), *has* to work platform-independent -
especially with its built-in Drawing-lib and general GUI- and Control-support (when it wants to be a "Visual language").
What happens currently is, that many VB6-devs will probably "copy VB6-code, which works against MS-libs"
(despite having alternative examples already available with less code, "future proof code" - via the cairo-wrapper),
just to "save a Dll in their current deployments".
Let me re-iterate what I already wrote in a reply to yereverluvinuncleber...
Any code which currently works "against MS-libs" (be that kernel32.dll, user32.dll, GDIplus, DirectX) will be worthless (in the long-term),
when we plan to re-juvenate the VB6-langauge and its accompanying Class-libraries...
Which is only possible, when this new incarnation is counted among all the other (already platform-independent) languages and frameworks.
Sorry for the long post,
but I really try to make (especially) you (and wqweto) understand, how important it is, to not scatter community efforts due to "petty reasons" or something...
I'm of the opinion, that (given the current state of the community), "we have only one good try" -
but if half of the (experienced) members of the community "do their own thing, planning to implement new IDE and compiler stuff Windows-only",
then we have exactly the situation the FreeBasic-community was unable to overcome for the last decade.
Please have a little trust, when I say that I will "open the sources, when it is time" (currently it isn't - but that will change).
@SearchingDataOnly
I'm currently about to finish a new cwEditor-SyntaxEditor-Widget, which was implemented "from scratch"...
- not using anything scintilla-like lib
- instead it is based on "visual inheritance" of a cwVList-Control
...(which does all the heavy lifting with regards to "scrolling, selections and stuff", saving a lot of code-lines in the new widget)
That has always been what I expected. When a good seed is provided, the miracle will appear again.
I used to develop CodeEditor based on cwTextBox, but it was unsuccessful. Using cwVList as a prototype to develop CodeEditor is one of my next plans. If there is cwEditor, then my work progress will be greatly accelerated. Obviously, cwEditor will be another "best practice", it comes too timely.
Using Scintilla to develop CodeEditor is a very painful thing for me, but it can be used as a performance testing tool and criterion for other CodeEditors. In my opinion, a CodeEditor with a performance of 80% (at least 70%) of Scintilla is a qualified CodeEditor. In order to devote my energy to more valuable things, I'll complete and end the Scintilla-Editor project as soon as possible.
Originally Posted by Schmidt
I'll post it into the CodeBank next week - and I'd welcome yours (or anybodys) help,
to drive its functionality further along, based on that initial version.
Same goes for the Form-Designer-Project (which I also plan, to place in the CodeBank for "advancement by the community").
Let the right people do the right things. I think I am very suitable for these detailed tasks. If I can do some work to "promote the development of vb6", I would be deeply honored.
Last edited by SearchingDataOnly; Feb 18th, 2021 at 11:31 PM.