RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?

[Miguel de Icaza]

Hello,

> >     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  It's the same non-MVC, ancient, outdated way of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.

Miguel.