[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangere
From: |
jscottb |
Subject: |
RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs? |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Oct 2003 00:21:30 -0500 (EST) |
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> 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.
>
Not tying to get into this argument, but this is not a new this for
Windows.Forms or Microsoft. Tk (Tcl/Tk) allows for most of this. To me
the Window.Forms stuff looks like Tk more than anything else.
scott
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Gopal V, 2003/10/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- Re: [Mono-list] Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Paolo Molaro, 2003/10/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Norbert Bollow, 2003/10/13
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?, Adam Ballai, 2003/10/13
- Re: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to theUS-patent-endangered APIs?, Seth Johnson, 2003/10/11
- RE: [DotGNU]Re: Collaboration on alternatives to the US-patent-endangered APIs?,
jscottb <=
[DotGNU]ECMA Standard Base classes and Assemblies., jscottb, 2003/10/10