Nick B wrote:
> Justin Johansson wrote:
>> A week or two ago I started a thread suggesting that JavaScript might be an interesting "VM" for D to target for web apps.  A thriving discussion ensured and it was a delight to read the opinions posted by many on this newsgroup.
>>
>> The idea came out of a frustration I had with having to develop a rather complex application using browser-only technology, JavaScript being somewhat awkward to deal with the task at hand.  In the process of pondering the scalability of the programming task I looked to many different ways of circumventing programming plain old JavaScript and considered such things as Haxe, Cappuccino (Objective-J) and SproutCore.  Then it occurred to me everything I liked about D and had this fairy wish that D might be ideal for client side programming down to JS.
>>
>> Since then, my client has gone completely off web apps for this particular Linux-embedded hand-held mobile device and has mandated that the apps will now be written as desktop apps in Qt.
>>

> 
> 
> you might want to check out this. Its state of the art, but its for a games environment.
> 
> http://hybrid.team0xf.com/
> 
> Nick

here is the short FAQ for Hybrid.
FAQ

    * Q: Does Hybrid support arbitrarily-shaped widgets?
    * A: Any widgets in Hybrid may use a custom shape. As long as it 	   plays well with the layout and rendering system, it should be OK.

    * Q: Does Hybrid support wobbly windows?
    * A: It's on the TODO list.

    * Q: Can I create a layout handler that treats widgets as physical objects in a dynamics simulation?
    * A: Yes, although widget rotations are not currently supported.

    * Q: Is Hybrid some SDL GUI?
    * A: No, but it's possible to create a SDL backend.

    * Q: What platforms does it run on?
    * A: In theory, all OpenGL and D-capable platforms that support Xlib or WinApi with Unicode should run the OpenGL backend. It has been tested on Windows XP, Vista, a few Linux distributions and FreeBSD.

    * Q: What's with the corn? :)
    * A: Hybrid food. Logo maker's idea :P

cheers
Nick

Michel Fortin wrote:
> I'm looking at Opera 10.53 and just by opening the preference pane I can tell you this is wrong:

As far as I know Opera uses Qt on Linux - but not for the user interface. http://my.opera.com/kilsmo/blog/2008/01/29/opera-is-not-based-on-qt

Cheers,
Christian

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin@michelf.com> wrote in message news:hs4s7g$1tc4$1@digitalmars.com...
>> On 2010-05-08 18:34:02 -0400, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> said:
>>
>>> Sat, 08 May 2010 18:22:37 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now that I find really surprising. On Windows, Chrome is one of the biggest offenders of "To hell with native look & feel!" that I've ever seen.
>>>
>>> Chrome, on the other hand, has consistent look & feel across all platforms. I guess the style comes from their own google web os system. It doesn't look bad in my opinion, e.g. compared to Java and Swing.
>>
>> I was mostly talking about the non-browser-window elements, such as the preferences and the about box or any other windows. I specifically ignored the browser window because I understand they include a lot of custom controls which doesn't necessarily represent Qt or Cocoa fairly.
>>
> 
> Ahh, I was including the browser window. Regarding the dialog/preference windows:
> 
> The dialog *body* has a very native look & feel, and I think it probably uses the native controls.
> 
> The title/frame/border looks identical to non-accelerated Aero...but I'm on XP. One hell of a blatant gaffe. (And even if I were on Win7, I would definitely set the system to the "Classic" non-aero style anyway. There's a number of things I like better about it, aesthetics just being one reason).

you can right-click and select 'Use system title bar and borders'. Or are you referring to the looks only? I disagree about Chrome being badly designed though, the nice thing about Chrome tabs is that you can easily drag one loose, rearrange or merge existing windows. This way they also take much less precious vertical space. Chrome is not as cluttered as the other browsers are, it just gets out of your way and lets you browse the web.

Anyway, 'native look and feel' is a joke on windows. The classical style is
history now and windows forms will probably be obsoleted by WPF soon. The big
MS apps like Word, msn, windows media player, visual studio 2010: they all
have very different styles from each other and previous versions of
themselves.

>>
>> I wonder, what is wrong with Chrome on Windows? I mean, what is wrong that is not by design but because of laziness or incompleteness?
>>
> 
> The above. Other than that, most of my [long, long, long list of] issues with Chrome are by-design things. However, I don't normally distinguish between intentional bad designs and accidental bad designs. Bad design is bad design. If anything, accidental bad design is better because at least then there's a chance that the developer might be persuaded to fix it.

"Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hs5n6h$5k4$1@digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>
>> "Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin@michelf.com> wrote in message news:hs4s7g$1tc4$1@digitalmars.com...
>>> On 2010-05-08 18:34:02 -0400, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> said:
>>>
>>>> Sat, 08 May 2010 18:22:37 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Now that I find really surprising. On Windows, Chrome is one of the biggest offenders of "To hell with native look & feel!" that I've ever seen.
>>>>
>>>> Chrome, on the other hand, has consistent look & feel across all platforms. I guess the style comes from their own google web os system. It doesn't look bad in my opinion, e.g. compared to Java and Swing.
>>>
>>> I was mostly talking about the non-browser-window elements, such as the
>>> preferences and the about box or any other windows. I specifically
>>> ignored
>>> the browser window because I understand they include a lot of custom
>>> controls which doesn't necessarily represent Qt or Cocoa fairly.
>>>
>>
>> Ahh, I was including the browser window. Regarding the dialog/preference windows:
>>
>> The dialog *body* has a very native look & feel, and I think it probably uses the native controls.
>>
>> The title/frame/border looks identical to non-accelerated Aero...but I'm
>> on
>> XP. One hell of a blatant gaffe. (And even if I were on Win7, I would
>> definitely set the system to the "Classic" non-aero style anyway. There's
>> a
>> number of things I like better about it, aesthetics just being one
>> reason).
>
> you can right-click and select 'Use system title bar and borders'. Or are
> you
> referring to the looks only?

That's not showing up for me.

Nick Sabalausky wrote:

> "Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hs5n6h$5k4$1@digitalmars.com...
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>
>>> "Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin@michelf.com> wrote in message news:hs4s7g$1tc4$1@digitalmars.com...
>>>> On 2010-05-08 18:34:02 -0400, retard <re@tard.com.invalid> said:
>>>>
>>>>> Sat, 08 May 2010 18:22:37 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now that I find really surprising. On Windows, Chrome is one of the biggest offenders of "To hell with native look & feel!" that I've ever seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Chrome, on the other hand, has consistent look & feel across all platforms. I guess the style comes from their own google web os system. It doesn't look bad in my opinion, e.g. compared to Java and Swing.
>>>>
>>>> I was mostly talking about the non-browser-window elements, such as the
>>>> preferences and the about box or any other windows. I specifically
>>>> ignored
>>>> the browser window because I understand they include a lot of custom
>>>> controls which doesn't necessarily represent Qt or Cocoa fairly.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahh, I was including the browser window. Regarding the dialog/preference windows:
>>>
>>> The dialog *body* has a very native look & feel, and I think it probably uses the native controls.
>>>
>>> The title/frame/border looks identical to non-accelerated Aero...but I'm
>>> on
>>> XP. One hell of a blatant gaffe. (And even if I were on Win7, I would
>>> definitely set the system to the "Classic" non-aero style anyway. There's
>>> a
>>> number of things I like better about it, aesthetics just being one
>>> reason).
>>
>> you can right-click and select 'Use system title bar and borders'. Or are
>> you
>> referring to the looks only?
> 
> That's not showing up for me.

Ok, looks like this is specific for the linux chrome version. You have to right-click in the chrome title bar btw, not just anywhere.

I do agree though that apps should respect or at least enable title bar decoration and theming. (Note that microsoft apps like office 2007 do not do this!) Most, if not all, linux window managers can be configured to force system titlebar decorations, perhaps it is also possible under windows.

Robert Clipsham Wrote:

> On 09/05/10 02:26, Andrej M. wrote:
> > Almost turned blind right there. Fuzzy image on that homepage. :)
> 
> Ever heard the phrase "Don't judge a book by its cover"? I think that applies here, it's actually a very good GUI.

I know, I saw that library before, I quite like it actually.

But it was 3 AM, and my eyes were turning red. :)

On 08/05/10 14:24, Lutger wrote:
> 3: The C++ and meta-object compiler are not the core of it's success, but
> rather the combination of:
> - well-designed
> - HUGE coherent framework
> - good cross-platform capability
> - both open source and commercial
> - used by KDE, sponsored by Nokia

Add to this:
- excellent documentation
- excellent tutorials for newcomers
- huge, well sorted set of examples and case studies for special tasks

"Lutger" <lutger.blijdestijn@gmail.com> wrote in message news:hs64bs$voj$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> Ok, looks like this is specific for the linux chrome version. You have to right-click in the chrome title bar btw, not just anywhere.
>
> I do agree though that apps should respect or at least enable title bar
> decoration and theming. (Note that microsoft apps like office 2007 do not
> do
> this!) Most, if not all, linux window managers can be configured to force
> system titlebar decorations, perhaps it is also possible under windows.

One of the millions of projects I would be working on if I had time:

A cross-platform GUI system that allowed 100% native look & feel, but also had an easy-to-use config program that allows the user to make/save/install skins (including highly-configurable skins, such as the "classic" Windows style, where f***ing everything can be adjusted - something that is idiotically missing in all so-called "modern" themes like Aero and Aqua). The user can set these themes on both a system-wide level and on an app-by-app basis. Theme settings would also affect the system's native Aero/Aqua/WinClassic/Gnome/KDE/etc settings to whatever extent is actually possible (Naturally, this means it would work best, by far, on Linux, but without MS or Apple taking notice, that can't be helped.)

Also, it would provide automatic protection against the now-epidemic invisible-text-syndrome by having the API designed so that it's impossible for a programmer to accidentally set up foreground/background colors with one being system-default and the other being manually-specified (something that should *never* happen, but is done *constantly* in both applications and websites, hell, .NET's WinForms even has cases where you *can't* fix it).

IMO, there is *NO* excuse for any modern windowing system *not* to work this way. I mean, crap, ***Windows 3.x*** was already most of the way there. All it was missing was a way to set things on an app-by-app basis and support for alternate rendering (and the invisible-text protection, but IIRC, developers back then weren't in the habit of making that mistake quite like they are now). I can understand Win3 missing those things, but I find it nothing short of truly pathetic that in the *20* years since, not only have we not been able to make that *little* bit of advancement, but things have actually gone *backwards*.