Originally posted by rdnetto
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
GXUI: A New Cross-Platform UI Library By Google
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostHard drives used to transfer max 5 MB/s when I was a kid.....
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commodore_Datasette)
Comment
-
Originally posted by bnolsen View PostI wrote a layout engine for fltk2 to remove any use of hard coded sizes and coordonates a while back (fltkl i think). I've been meaning to port/fork fltk2 over to use sdl2 as the backend, just need money and time (as usual).
gtk isn't so great cross platform and qt is definitely bloated. has serious problems with non orthogonality and definitely has plenty of surprises if you try to dig into it.
it's been a while since I tested but a few years back qt4 took 40 mins to compile. fltk2 compiles in 8 seconds flat on my dev machine, libraries, utilities, test programs and all.
gxgui will take some reading to see if they have any cool new enlightened ways of doing that boring gui thing no one ever seems to get right.
Instead use FLTK 1.3 and possibly in the future 3.x. But 1.3 is where it is at these days.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View PostIf your GUI application is properly written (and not something like a CAD program that does significant computation in the UI) then the actual GUI code itself is minimal, and in fact you can pretty easily throw out a WPF, WinForms and GTK# frontend for it.
That said QtSharp is being developed https://github.com/ddobrev/QtSharp so that problem will solve itself within a short time.
1) It is not a native part of .NET, and so it would give extra headache to devs who will have to learn a lot of technical cruft about dotnet internals and how to plug their UI lib to .NET and how to supply it to user in usable way. If one thinks devs are in mood to have it as hard as that - good luck with it!
2) Somehow you're silly enough to assume devs can have uber-goal to use .NET at all costs. This is fucking wrong idea from MS zealots.
And from my experience, if one is real about about being cross-platform, first step is to completely forget about MS and their techs. They proven to be really hostile to cross-platform things, because they're inherently interested in vendor lock.
Also GTK# IS in fact supported by native .NET hence why Monodevelop (on windows known as Xamarin Studio) can be run on the native .NET stack, and Mono usually isn't installed with it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostTo be honest my Haswell computer is already slowing down if I run 8 flash video applets at the same time. I don't know why since it can decode those videos at over 8x realtime easily. I also experience lag in KDE applications and the browsers seems a bit slow. Also Java IDEs can be slow (GUI wise). So I don't know. I'm using XFCE and quite happy with it. But still, the same desktop works happily even on a 10 year old PC.
Comment
-
Originally posted by caligula View PostAlso Java IDEs can be slow (GUI wise).
- Java GUI apps are pretty zippy and responsive. JavaFX is a nice choice.
- Almost no one is doing desktop client GUI applications any more. That has become an extreme niche field. Web browsers, chat clients, terminal apps, IDEs, content creation apps with sound+graphics, and games... That's mostly it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DanLamb View Post- Almost no one is doing desktop client GUI applications any more. That has become an extreme niche field. Web browsers, chat clients, terminal apps, IDEs, content creation apps with sound+graphics, and games... That's mostly it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostThere is one fancy thing though: REAL cross platform solutions do not require all this weird crap. You see, GTK based program runs anywhere as a matter of recompile. Qt does it even better and on even more plaftorms, with even more native look. Even SDL based game would do so. Java would do it as well (though crappy, but at least it works). So it usually takes Z-E-R-O changes to code. And whole need to change code completely screws up "write once, run everywhere" idea. Far harder than need to recompile source. Recompiling does not takes much effort and could be automated. Writing some extra code is not and it really creates dumbass problem out of nowhere. Only really insane devs would turn MS greed and their overall inability to think beyond Winduz into their own problems.
The other alternative is realizing that the GUI is in most cases a rather small part of an application and as a result that if the application is designed properly then the actual application logic effectively exists as a library that is then used by your GTK, Qt, Console, etc frontends. With it being quick and easy to bring up a new one. This has the advantage in that you're enforcing loose coupling, and your application is going to be specially integrated with the environment that it is targeting.
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostThere is only couple of probs:
1) It is not a native part of .NET, and so it would give extra headache to devs who will have to learn a lot of technical cruft about dotnet internals and how to plug their UI lib to .NET and how to supply it to user in usable way. If one thinks devs are in mood to have it as hard as that - good luck with it!
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post2) Somehow you're silly enough to assume devs can have uber-goal to use .NET at all costs. This is fucking wrong idea from MS zealots.
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostAnd from my experience, if one is real about about being cross-platform, first step is to completely forget about MS and their techs. They proven to be really hostile to cross-platform things, because they're inherently interested in vendor lock.
Fortunately most devs are not insane enough to face all this "native" support from MS. All this "cross"platform support is so formal and third-rate they better to shut up with their marketing bullshit. It really suxx when marketing advertisements are better than actual software and it is what I hate about MS products.
Comment
Comment