FireFly O2

[JRS]

FireFly Visual Designer is a rapid application development environment for the FreeBASIC computer language. FireFly accelerates the development of your Windows 32-bit programs. All the speed of "C" with the rapid application development time of Visual Basic.

No runtime DLLs (Dynamic Link Libraries) of any kind. Every FireFly created application is totally self-contained and does not require any supporting DLLs to be distributed. Choose from almost 200 internal functions that make combining your code with TreeViews, ListViews, Labels, Command Buttons, TabControls, ProgressBars, etc... extremely easy. You can code entire applications without any Win32 API knowledge.

Modular Code. FireFly allows the programmer to "attach" code to individual window's messages that are destined for the controls that you create. Separating the code for each control allows for highly maintainable code and discourages the use of bug causing global variables. The code editor is "built in" - no need to shell back and forth between a designer and a code editor.

[Charles Pegge]

If it outputs plain procedural code, Oxygen should be able to compile the source with maybe a few supporting functions and macros.

[JRS]

That is outstanding news! How can we test this?

[Charles Pegge]

I think create a form, generate the source script(s) for it, and we will see what is needed.

[JRS]

I sent an e-mail to Paul and asked if he would be willing to mentor this project along. I also asked if he would create an example for you that would be a good test to see if this is doable.

It's kind of funny in a way. I remember when the OxygenBasic.org site first got started I mention that O2 sounds like a great follow-up to the FreeBASIC project. (seeing O2 was written in FB) It didn't dawn on me (until the FireFly brain fart) that FB BASIC code could be compiled by the O2 compiler. I really hope this pans out for both Paul and Charles.

[JRS]

Charles,

I haven't heard from Paul so I compiled one the the FireFly examples and attached the generated code for the project.





X

[JRS]

Here is the Address Book example.




X

[JRS]

Paul e-mailed me back and said he has no interest in adding other language at this time.

We are on our own if we want to make the FreeBASIC version work in O2.

[Charles Pegge]

Wow! that's a huge amount of code for such teeny Dialogs

I suppose bulk is not a concern when code is auto-generated.

After a brief viewing of the form source code, I picked up 4 constructs that would need some attention:

Redim

Do..Until

Restore .. Data ... Read ...

Pointered members using arrow notation: ->

[JRS]

Too much work and without Paul tweaking it for O2, it isn't worth our time.  IMHO

Wow! that's a huge amount of code for such teeny Dialogs

It must be the mentality of "who cares, we have a fast compiler that doesn't compile everything in as before." (PB10/6 - dead code removal)

I think IUP is hands down a better match for BASIC.

[Aurel]

Heh ..IUP...
ok IUP could be good solution for someone who like this way of programming ...
not for me at all
but hey what about....
QT
wX
eGUI++
WTL
etc...etc...etc...

[JRS]

From what I gather from Charles's comments is that he would like to stay the ANSI/ISO C route for portability sake. We must always keep in mind the reason people use BASIC is they are counting on the language developer to hide the uglies and only require what is needed to allow the underlining code to do it's magic. If SDK style programming is your passion, why use BASIC at all and just write your stuff in C?

[Aurel]

I agree in some points with you but i don't see what is wrong with SDK style

[JRS]

I agree in some points with you but i don't see what is wrong with SDK style

You are correct. There isn't anything wrong with SDK low level programming. It's what Windows is based on. It just doesn't have a place in traditional BASIC. A good rule of thumb is focus on what you're good at.