Skip to main content

Web programming programming has a name

Now it’s called “FrameUs” which is a system which builds frameworks for applications. The prototypical bits I’ve got going so far are all web oriented, but the structure I’m adopting opens itself to use in a graphic or even text-based GUIs (er... would that be a TUI?).

The bottom-line idea is to write all of the little fiddly bits of a typical book-keeping application into FrameUs, so all one has to do for a new application is code any chunks which are unique to this specific situation.

Conceptually, I could hand this to Joe Random Book-keeper who knows what (s)he’s doing in book-keeping terms & isn’t terrified of a computer, then stand back to let him/her design the database (actually, modify existing tables) & modify or write a few reports in his word-processor.

The application is data-centric enough that I can’t see any problem with running it from a LiveCD which can then self-install. The whole thing can be expressed in ASCII so far, & I see no reason to change that.

In fact, everything except the reports could be expressed in bog-standard SQL of the CREATE TABLE/INSERT level, & those could be expressed as ASCII PostScript. Installation could consist of "tar xvzf package.tar.gz; psql -f package/setup.psql". Or MySQL/FireBird/whatever equivalents of course.

Comments

Major said…
If this something you are doing/planning yourself or
something you found somewhere?

googleing "frameus frameworks" finds this blog entry.
Leon RJ Brooks said…
Doing and planning myself. And it’s surprisingly difficult to find time for.

I want to make something which basically works, stores enough context to be usefully portable, then invite all & sundry to whale away at it.

The Googling works because Google has an interest in Blogger.

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...