Re: NewEra: Anyone using it?

David W Chan wrote: > > Mike Segel <mikey@segel.NOSPAM-.KING.OF.MYDOMAIN.-NOSPAM.com> wrote: > > >David W Chan wrote: > > > >> >- Overall experience > >> > >> Good language and the tools are improving. Lack of object > >> partitioning means that partitioning is difficult. Lack of exception > >> handling makes it hard to handle errors in a controlled way. > >> > >Gaff! > >Good Language? > >Not! > >As far as C++ derived languages, Java has it beat hands down. > > I wouldn't go that far. The NewEra language is good. Java is better > but it is not way ahead. > Yeah, it is. If you want to get down to the syntax of the grammer, java is much cleaner. > Apart from the exception handling mentioned above, the only major > difference is the support for interfaces. Java could do with some of > the features found in NE such as handlers, parameter naming, automatic > casting, and being able to return multiple parameters. > No, See, that is the problem. The "handler" of Informix is full of holes and poorly implemented. See the entire thread on ix_supertable exception handling. The problem, which can not be fixed, is that all objects are tied to their window. I mean that all objects are down the line from the window in which they were instantiated. The concept of delagation is foreign and can't work within NE framework. This is a limiting factor and causes exception errors. I don't believe that there is the concept of an application object, separate from a window? Is there? Another problem is that to modify an existing object, you have to subclass that object. So for every visual object you create, you are subclassing that object, not just an instantiation of that object. > >For OO, look at smalltalk and Objective C. > > Is NewEra not OO? > Technically no. Informix has fudged the definition of OO to suit their needs. I don't believe N.E. is polymorphic, supports multiple inheritence, does it? Another thing to point out, is that some of the class hierarchy is sloppy. For example, (If this still exists in 3.0), you have a button, then a picture button. Why the two distinct object classes? IMHO, it should be one class. Unless a graphic is specified, then use the default square boundries and image. The functionality is the same. > >Just $.02 worth. > > >-Mikey > > David > -Mike -- #include <std_disclaimer.h> /* Mike Segel (MS385) */ #include <No_Spam.h> #ifdef OFFENDED_BY_CONTENT The author takes no responsibility for this post. Any resemblence to a coherent rational thought is purely coincidence. -The Management. #endif ***************************** Due to AGIS's Refusal to Act Responsibly We are blocking all of their domains at the packet level. This block will exist until AGIS modifies their policies to conform to existing RFCs and net community standards. We encourage all ISPs and domain holders to do the same. *****************************