Nope.
I find the new framework code MUCH less readable, and the example made my point.
You can’t tell me that more verbose code that is littered with unnecessary Xojo.Core or Xojo.Math etc statements is MORE readable. It flies in the face of the evidence.
I wasn’t arguing one way or another. I was arguing that the example isn’t grounded in reality.
In my opinion, I think the new framework is making Xojo both more java-like and more cocoa-like. It has some nice new features, and a lot of time has been spent on the APIs, but it is still very immature. The autocomplete issues and lack of feature parity between project types are major hurdles to true adoption. Adoption is already an issue given the human desire to not port existing projects, so the new framework has many strikes against it.
I made my argument against the new framework when I was with Xojo. I remember thinking “the new framework pretty much requires autocomplete, but we still can’t get that working right, so we’re just deluding ourselves.”
I don’t find the new framework any less readable myself, but I do remember Geoff only willing to use namespaces if autocomplete could abstract them away from us. So far the IDE has failed to fulfill that requirement, but I’m hoping that will change. Between usability and porting, the new framework is a problem I don’t believe Xojo should have taken on. But it’s not going away now, so we should learn to get along with it. I’m trying to adopt it where possible, and my next Animation Kit does just that.
As you can tell, I’m very torn on the subject.
Well, I was (and am) typing this on my iPad, so my choice was to either type a lot of code (old vs new framework) or copy/paste some text and sprinkle it with Xojo.Core. statements. Reality doesn’t really come into it.
In any case it nicely illustrated that the new framework used like this is less readable - which was what the argument was about.
I’m not knowledgeable enough to comment further on the new framework.