January 24, 2004
Matthew wrote:

>"Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
>news:buh34c$2168$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>  
>
>>In article <bucjga$q2n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
>>    
>>
>>>>can we just create the entire class hierarchy,
>>>>using swig. then we just "fill in the blanks".
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>You sure can try!
>>>      
>>>
>>Couldn't even get to first base...
>>
>>    
>>
>>>That's the new port for all platforms that implements it's own widget
>>>      
>>>
>sets
>  
>
>>>instead of calling OS dependent ones.
>>>      
>>>
>>Interesting (roughly and roughly chronological):
>>java AWT - use only common native widgets
>>java swing - don't use native widget, implements "full" set of widgets
>>eclise SWT - use native widgets where possible, implement others
>>wxWindows - use native widgets
>>wxWindowsUniversal - don't use native widgets.
>>
>>Seems people still doesn't know what's more important,
>>give the user a consistent look and feel on a specific platform or
>>give the same application the same look and feel accross different
>>platforms.
>>    
>>
>
>Isn't it obvious?
>
>Users want the same look and feel on a single platform. Developers want the
>same look and feel for a single app between different platforms.
>
>Which one's going to result in the most successful software?
>
>  
>
Personally I prefer the same look of an app on all platforms. But then again I am an openGL/game fan.

-- 
-Anderson: http://badmama.com.au/~anderson/
January 24, 2004
"J Anderson" <REMOVEanderson@badmama.com.au> wrote in message news:butevk$qqj$2@digitaldaemon.com...
> Matthew wrote:
>
> >"Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:buh34c$2168$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >
> >
> >>In article <bucjga$q2n$1@digitaldaemon.com>, John Reimer says...
> >>
> >>
> >>>>can we just create the entire class hierarchy,
> >>>>using swig. then we just "fill in the blanks".
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>You sure can try!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Couldn't even get to first base...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>That's the new port for all platforms that implements it's own widget
> >>>
> >>>
> >sets
> >
> >
> >>>instead of calling OS dependent ones.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Interesting (roughly and roughly chronological):
> >>java AWT - use only common native widgets
> >>java swing - don't use native widget, implements "full" set of widgets
> >>eclise SWT - use native widgets where possible, implement others
> >>wxWindows - use native widgets
> >>wxWindowsUniversal - don't use native widgets.
> >>
> >>Seems people still doesn't know what's more important,
> >>give the user a consistent look and feel on a specific platform or
> >>give the same application the same look and feel accross different
> >>platforms.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Isn't it obvious?
> >
> >Users want the same look and feel on a single platform. Developers want
the
> >same look and feel for a single app between different platforms.
> >
> >Which one's going to result in the most successful software?
> >
> >
> >
> Personally I prefer the same look of an app on all platforms. But then again I am an openGL/game fan.

And you're a developer. Like the rest of us, your opinion of what is an important consistency is largely irrelevant, because most users are not developers. This is a classic mistake of "informed" choices by developers and power-user managers who fail to grasp the commercial realities. If we want D to "win", then it has to have a UI that equals or betters that provided by competing languages, which basically means it must be at least as good in look and feel as .NET. ;/




January 24, 2004
J Anderson wrote:
> 
> Personally I prefer the same look of an app on all platforms. But then again I am an openGL/game fan.
> 

The way I see it, applications running on Windows should look like Windows applications.  Applications running on OSX should look like OSX applications.  It shouldn't be at all obvious how the application was made, or even that it runs on any other platform at all.

 -- andy
January 24, 2004
"Andy Friesen" <andy@ikagames.com> wrote in message
news:buu7ps$20at$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| J Anderson wrote:
| >
| > Personally I prefer the same look of an app on all platforms. But then
| > again I am an openGL/game fan.
| >
|
| The way I see it, applications running on Windows should look like
| Windows applications.  Applications running on OSX should look like OSX
| applications.  It shouldn't be at all obvious how the application was
| made, or even that it runs on any other platform at all.
|
|   -- andy

Same here

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal


January 24, 2004
In article <buuf0i$2blo$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
>
>"Andy Friesen" <andy@ikagames.com> wrote in message
>news:buu7ps$20at$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>| J Anderson wrote:
>| >
>| > Personally I prefer the same look of an app on all platforms. But then
>| > again I am an openGL/game fan.
>| >
>|
>| The way I see it, applications running on Windows should look like
>| Windows applications.  Applications running on OSX should look like OSX
>| applications.  It shouldn't be at all obvious how the application was
>| made, or even that it runs on any other platform at all.
>|
>|   -- andy
>
>Same here
>
>-----------------------
>Carlos Santander Bernal
>
>

that's not that simple.
when you start your favority email client
why should you care what OS is supporting it?

but that's not here yet. give it another 3 ot 5 years.

Ant


January 24, 2004
Ant wrote:
> 
>>| The way I see it, applications running on Windows should look like
>>| Windows applications.  Applications running on OSX should look like OSX
>>| applications.  It shouldn't be at all obvious how the application was
>>| made, or even that it runs on any other platform at all.
>>|
> 
> that's not that simple.
> when you start your favority email client
> why should you care what OS is supporting it?
> 
> but that's not here yet. give it another 3 ot 5 years.
> 

Because I want my mail client to behave as if it were an extension of the operating system, and not some freaky thing that latched onto it somehow. :)

 -- andy
January 24, 2004
On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 12:30:33 -0800, Andy Friesen wrote:

> Ant wrote:
>> 
>>>| The way I see it, applications running on Windows should look like
>>>| Windows applications.  Applications running on OSX should look like OSX
>>>| applications.  It shouldn't be at all obvious how the application was
>>>| made, or even that it runs on any other platform at all.
>>>|
>> 
>> that's not that simple.
>> when you start your favority email client
>> why should you care what OS is supporting it?
>> 
>> but that's not here yet. give it another 3 ot 5 years.
>> 
> 
> Because I want my mail client to behave as if it were an extension of the operating system, and not some freaky thing that latched onto it somehow. :)
> 
>   -- andy

you are wrong of course. ;)

if it's you preferred it's not freaky.
and you want it to be the same at home,
at work, in your palm, in your rist computer(limitation may apply),
in a public computer...

and not everybody will use the same look and feel for the same application.

but that's not here yet. give it another 3 ot 5 years.
(hmmm.. i've said that before)

Ant

January 24, 2004
Ant wrote:
> 
> you are wrong of course. ;)
> 
> if it's you preferred it's not freaky.
> and you want it to be the same at home,
> at work, in your palm, in your rist computer(limitation may apply),
> in a public computer...
> 
> and not everybody will use the same look and feel for the
> same application.
> 
> but that's not here yet. give it another 3 ot 5 years.
> (hmmm.. i've said that before)
> 
> Ant
> 

It's important to remember that most nontechnical folk consider the tool to be the *hardware*.  The application is just part of that tool.  If a part of that tool doesn't behave like all the others, then the users expectations are betrayed.

I know people who eschew GIMP on windows because it's 'weird and ugly'.  People avoid Blender for the same reason.

 -- andy
January 24, 2004
Andy Friesen wrote:
> Ant wrote:
> 
>>
>> you are wrong of course. ;)
>>
>> if it's you preferred it's not freaky.
>> and you want it to be the same at home,
>> at work, in your palm, in your rist computer(limitation may apply),
>> in a public computer...
>>
>> and not everybody will use the same look and feel for the
>> same application.
>>
>> but that's not here yet. give it another 3 ot 5 years.
>> (hmmm.. i've said that before)
>>
>> Ant
>>
> 
> It's important to remember that most nontechnical folk consider the tool to be the *hardware*.  The application is just part of that tool.  If a part of that tool doesn't behave like all the others, then the users expectations are betrayed.
> 
> I know people who eschew GIMP on windows because it's 'weird and ugly'.  People avoid Blender for the same reason.
> 
>  -- andy

The easiest way was to have a swt like interface but making skinning possible. For example by writing a set of widgets using opengl that support skin loading. You could do this by having a object request broker for widget creation, that uses another table of classes for each skin.
This could look like:

import gui;

gui.GuiCreator guicreator = new GuiCreator();
guicreator.SetSkin("standard");
//guicreator.SetSkin("windows");
//guicreator.SetSkin("GTK");
Widget mywidget = guicreator.CreateWidget("Edit");

This way the developer could decide what he wants his application to behave.

Stephan

January 24, 2004
"Ant" <Ant_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:buuhum$2g5g$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> In article <buuf0i$2blo$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Carlos Santander B. says...
> >
> >"Andy Friesen" <andy@ikagames.com> wrote in message
> >news:buu7ps$20at$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> >| J Anderson wrote:
> >| >
> >| > Personally I prefer the same look of an app on all platforms. But
then
> >| > again I am an openGL/game fan.
> >| >
> >|
> >| The way I see it, applications running on Windows should look like
> >| Windows applications.  Applications running on OSX should look like OSX
> >| applications.  It shouldn't be at all obvious how the application was
> >| made, or even that it runs on any other platform at all.
> >|
> >|   -- andy
> >
> >Same here
> >
> >-----------------------
> >Carlos Santander Bernal
> >
> >
>
> that's not that simple.
> when you start your favority email client
> why should you care what OS is supporting it?
>
> but that's not here yet. give it another 3 ot 5 years.

The *vast* majority of users do not work on multiple operating systems. They quite reasonably want their apps to all look and work in the same way.

Everyone always craps on about Windows being boring because there's only one "Window Manager", and yet no-one seems to realise the Microsoft have been so successful because they provide very few surprises to their users over years and years. The operating systems even have the same propensity for crashing and inordinate greed for the latest memory and disk capacities! <G>