To review; yes I bought an Atari ST and yes its because it was cheaper than the Amiga. Never thought I would be where I am today or I would have bought the Amiga instead but, it was a toy to me at the time so I got an Atari. I'm not proudtechjunkie wrote:Upps! I didn't read that... I didn't read that...Randy Walker wrote:the Yuppies Atari game machine.
Damn!! That line really hurts...But it isn't true... Randy - I'll suggest you study some Amiga / Atari history!
OK.. Now go stand in the corner of the room...Randy Walker wrote: To review; yes I bought an Atari ST and yes its because it was cheaper than the Amiga. Never thought I would be where I am today or I would have bought the Amiga instead but, it was a toy to me at the time so I got an Atari. I'm not proud
LMAO That was funny! Ok though, the votes were in a while back and I already surrendered to the majority. Since several have returned to this comment, I will offer one very appropriate candicate if you would like to persue alternatives and still maintain a more descriptive term. Instead of AddItem or AddGadgetItem, how about AddControlItem? This may be considered appropriate since so much documentation already refers to controls and gadgets as "controls".techjunkie wrote:By the way... It seems really stupid and unlogical to remove "Gadget" and only use "AddItem", "SetText" and so on... Add item to what? Set text - on what?Randy Walker wrote:Can you please do something to get rid of the extraneous gadgets?...
Well, if the methods where listed for a object... For example,
But with the way PB works today I think it is ok... We have to live with it...Code: Select all
New ButtonGadget MyButtGadget MyButtGadget.SetText("Atari sucks!")
That's my point of view... :roll:
As for this commentary, please note the above only suggest an alternative word for the term "gadget", and that I have abandoned all interest in implimenting any such change. 
That's still a very Windows-cetric view. Fair enough, most people here are Windows types, but does it really matter what they're called? Most intelligent people will take the time to evaluate the purchase of a language and will end up seeing that a gadget is a button, control or widget or whatever.Randy Walker wrote:persue alternatives and still maintain a more descriptive term. Instead of AddItem or AddGadgetItem, how about AddControlItem? This may be considered appropriate since so much documentation already refers to controls and gadgets as "controls". :idea: As for this commentary, please note the above only
Yes but if traffic is slow and you are quick, you can get squeeze an after-thought in before anyone else sends their post. You are correct though. It probably should not be used in most cases.LuCiFeR[SD] wrote:There is one problem with the edit option... it makes newcomers to the topic loose track of whats being said, especially if edit gets abused to death2. I just realized my posts have an edit option, which is the reason for this addendum It wont exagerate the counter.
This is little more than a part time hobby for me. I do have one small but serious project and other than that, my focus in this field is very narrow (Guess I showed you 
). I am considerably more proficient at crashing Windows (just pick your favorite release ) than I am at programming so I don't like to think of myself as a programmer, and I think it would be a shame if my counter ever ended up leading someone to think that I am. (The crowd cheers 
)The company I work for writes for RedHat and SCO systems mostly, and I don't recall ever seeing the term "control" in any of the code I've seen there. I am not at all familiar with Lindows (or whatever) but it is my understanding that Lindows, Xwindows(?), etc. were all derived from Windows GUI concepts. If that is true (again I don't know) it would make sense to adhere closer to the originators terminology. When I first browsed the list of commands, I got down to all those gadgets and thought HuH! I was indeed looking for something more MS oriented. This may be inappropriate thinking but, I was after all looking at the list from inside the PureBasic "FOR WINDOWS" help.tinman wrote:That's still a very Windows-cetric view. Fair enough, most people here are Windows types, but does it really matter what they're called?Randy Walker wrote:persue alternatives and still maintain a more descriptive term. Instead of AddItem or AddGadgetItem, how about AddControlItem? This may be considered appropriate since so much documentation already refers to controls and gadgets as "controls".
) so... this be my last post on this topic. 
The originator of it all was Smalltalk, and the terminology in Smalltalk was widget:all derived from Windows GUI concepts. If that is true (again I don't know) it would make sense to adhere closer to the originators terminology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget]WikipediaIn computing, widgets are components of graphical user interfaces that the user interacts with. See widget (computing).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widget]Wikipediaan unnamed article considered for purposes of hypothetical example
Oh! bloat for all the platforms...the.weavster wrote:thefool wrote:but what platform has .net? windows. and probaly only windows.
www.go-mono.com
)... And I'm working on a huge (and smelly) project ATM... Anybody know of a good Network Admin/Techie position??? 
cant wait for 4.0