Various Topics on Programming

..g.. ....

osmium wrote:
> The point I was trying to make is that _all_ _file managers_ are, by their
> nature, non-portable. It makes not one bit of difference whether the OP
> meant a Windows file mgr or a Unix file mgr. Non-portable is non-portable.

I agree that there would have to be some small parts that would need to
be non-portable, but it seems to me that majority of the code (like 90%
or even 99% of it) could be portable to any operating system that treats
files as a hierarchy of sequences of bytes, which covers a lot of
operating systems.

Sure, different operating systems may use different characters to separate
pathnames, and they may have different sets of applications that can be
used to open different types of files, but these things can be abstracted
away into far corners of the code.

- Logan

..risti.. ..llwitz..

osmium wrote:
> Did you read the question? He asked how to replicate "file explorer" which
> is the Microsoft annoying, cutesy word for file manager. Unless you have
> some unrevealed secrets, file managers are, by their very nature,
> non-portable.

That depends on the definition of "portable": portability can only be
***ured over a distinct, probably finite set of operating
systems/environments. An ANSI C program is portable "only" to every
platform, where a conformant ANSI C compiler is available, albeit this
might be a large number.

If the OP would follow my advice to give a try to Tcl/Tk, he could make
a file explorer application that is portable between the major
platforms, where such a thing could be useful: Windows, Mac OS, and most
Unixes running X11.

Christian

..k

On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 22:43:28 -0500, Logan Shaw
<lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:

>I agree that there would have to be some small parts that would need to
>be non-portable, but it seems to me that majority of the code (like 90%
>or even 99% of it) could be portable to any operating system that treats
>files as a hierarchy of sequences of bytes, which covers a lot of
>operating systems.

Explorer is very little file handling and more GUI interaction e.g.
drag and drop, copy/paste etc. If you want an Explorer style
lookalike then the "90-99% portable" is not valid unless you use some
package that exists in all OS like GTK - however then you probably
will loose in performance instead.

..r..

"Christian Gollwitzer" <Christian.Gollwitzer@uni-bayreuth.de> wrote in
message news:f4qu32$kph$1@btr0x6.rz.uni-bayreuth.de...
> osmium wrote:
>> Did you read the question? He asked how to replicate "file explorer"
>> which is the Microsoft annoying, cutesy word for file manager. Unless you
>> have some unrevealed secrets, file managers are, by their very nature,
>> non-portable.
>
> That depends on the definition of "portable": portability can only be
> ***ured over a distinct, probably finite set of operating
> systems/environments. An ANSI C program is portable "only" to every
> platform, where a conformant ANSI C compiler is available, albeit this
> might be a large number.
>
> If the OP would follow my advice to give a try to Tcl/Tk, he could make a
> file explorer application that is portable between the major platforms,
> where such a thing could be useful: Windows, Mac OS, and most Unixes
> running X11.
>
> Christian

Alhtough whether Tcl/Tk is a good solution on any platform is a matter
of opinion.

..mi..

"Logan Shaw" writes:

> osmium wrote:
>> The point I was trying to make is that _all_ _file managers_ are, by
>> their nature, non-portable. It makes not one bit of difference whether
>> the OP meant a Windows file mgr or a Unix file mgr. Non-portable is
>> non-portable.
>
> I agree that there would have to be some small parts that would need to
> be non-portable, but it seems to me that majority of the code (like 90%
> or even 99% of it) could be portable to any operating system that treats
> files as a hierarchy of sequences of bytes, which covers a lot of
> operating systems.
>
> Sure, different operating systems may use different characters to separate
> pathnames, and they may have different sets of applications that can be
> used to open different types of files, but these things can be abstracted
> away into far corners of the code.

Only if you define "small" the way Bill Clinton defines "***".

..risti.. ..llwitz..

Barry wrote:
>>If the OP would follow my advice to give a try to Tcl/Tk, he could make a
>>file explorer application that is portable between the major platforms,
>>where such a thing could be useful: Windows, Mac OS, and most Unixes
>>running X11.
>
> Alhtough whether Tcl/Tk is a good solution on any platform is a matter
> of opinion.
>

Yes, and mine is probably different from yours. IMHO Tcl/Tk is a good
option, if you need to put together a simple graphical application fast
and easy. Using Tile (or the ttk:: namespace in recent Tcl/Tk 8.5) the
application will be visually attractive for most users on most
platforms. OO systems are available for structuring larger systems. Of
course I'd not advice to use Tcl for solving large PDE systems...

Christian