realbasic-plugins
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: OT: Framework vs. dylib (Was: Incorporating existing C/C++. .)

To: REALbasic Plugins <realbasic-plugins at lists dot realsoftware dot com>
Subject: Re: OT: Framework vs. dylib (Was: Incorporating existing C/C++. .)
From: Michael Williams <lists at mgreg dot com>
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 12:26:59 -0400
Delivered-to: listarchive at realsoftware dot com
Delivered-to: realbasic-plugins at lists dot realsoftware dot com
References: <C2D4D8DD dot 3E48F%cslittle at mac dot com>
>
> As for declares versus plug-in. They are very similar tasks in  
> terms of
> difficulty. The problems will simply be different. I'm more  
> comfortable
> writing plug-ins as I am more of a C/C++ programmer than I am an RB  
> one. The
> choice of which is simpler is really going to be dependent on which  
> you're
> more comfortable with not which is easier.


Yeah, I'm thinking I prefer to stick with Declares as I've actually  
*seen* those before and (in view of my current level of plugin  
"ignorance") think I would prefer it as opposed to the RB/C required  
"gibberish";  "gibberish" meaning I don't currently know, and don't  
think I have the time to get all knowed up on the RB to C mappings  
for class/function declarations.

Thanks,
Michael
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>

Search the archives:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>