MacOS X

> Charles
>
> I guess the other thing that must be kept in mind is that
> the major market for VW is for business applications. How
> many business users want to skin their applications?
>
> Terry
> ===========================================================
> Terry Raymond
> Crafted Smalltalk
> 80 Lazywood Ln.
> Tiverton, RI  02878
> (401) 624-4517      [hidden email]
> <http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
> ===========================================================
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles A. Monteiro [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:11 AM
>> To: Terry Raymond; [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
>>
>> that's a tongue twister :)
>>
>> the answer is one doesn't
>>
>> what I was trying to get across was that a skinable framework in VW and
>> regardless of how its implemented but without it meaning "native"  
>> widgets
>> could have as one of its skins a WinXP skin or the VB look a like skin ,
>> for those users that wanted to approximate a particular OS look and  
>> feel.
>> Basically, like what we have now in VW where our "skins" are these look
>> policies that attempt to approximate an OS look and feel.
>>
>> The skinable framework would of course have the added value of being
>> immensely more flexible and in tune with modern user's expectations. In  
>> my
>> opinion.
>>
>> There was once a package for skinning in VW. It was half baked and  
>> relied
>> on the VW base but an interesting start. From the little that I have  
>> seen
>> of Cairo , leveraging Cairo would provide a much more polished end  
>> result.
>>
>> -Charles
>>
>> On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:26:56 -0400, Terry Raymond
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> > Charles
>> >
>> > How does one skin VW emulated widgets using a windows
>> > skinning package?
>> >
>> > Terry
>> > ===========================================================
>> > Terry Raymond
>> > Crafted Smalltalk
>> > 80 Lazywood Ln.
>> > Tiverton, RI  02878
>> > (401) 624-4517      [hidden email]
>> > <http://www.craftedsmalltalk.com>
>> > ===========================================================
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Charles A. Monteiro [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> >> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 9:23 AM
>> >> To: Carl Gundel; [hidden email]
>> >> Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
>> >>
>> >> Carl:
>> >>
>> >> you and I will have to agree to disagree but only after a fight, over
>> >> beer
>> >> tonite :)
>> >>
>> >> I disagree that to you native widgets are "essential" i.e. do or die  
>> ,
>> >> must have, show-stopping, etc . If I was your marketing guy and  
>> knowing
>> >> what I know of your app I would tell you that most modern users are
>> used
>> >> to seeing skins. Most users of IDEs are used to seing skins.  
>> Certainly
>> >> most users of audio/visual/entertainment apps are used to seeing  
>> skins.
>> >>
>> >> I'll even dare assert that most users "prefer" skins and most of them
>> >> like
>> >> changing them from time to time.
>> >>
>> >> So your users that use Liberty Basic as a tool to learn should be  
>> happy
>> >> with skins. Those that actually use it to develop apps for commercial
>> >> release , most of them would probably be happy with skins including a
>> >> skin
>> >> that looked very close to Win XP. Then there's the subset that would
>> >> want
>> >> things to look exactly like what VisualBasic would generate.  
>> Although I
>> >> bet VB has a skin framework.
>> >>
>> >> -Charles
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:36:07 -0400, Carl Gundel
>> <[hidden email]>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > From: "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]>
>> >> >> Sigh, exactly. The point I was making is that if you want to put  
>> two
>> >> >> widgets next to each other where one is native and one is  
>> emulated,
>> >> your
>> >> >> emulated look better match the native one exactly, otherwise it  
>> just
>> >> >> won't look right to the user. In which case, why even both with
>> >> native?
>> >> >> ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > Why?  Because then you can support the things that users expect on
>> the
>> >> > given platform and do this using the widgets they are used to
>> >> seeing.  A
>> >> > user is running XP?  The widgets will look like XP without
>> compromise.
>> >> > When the user upgrades to Vista the app will look like Vista  
>> without
>> >> > compromise with no extra work because the OSs' window manager draws
>> >> > everything.
>> >> >
>> >> > So I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  To me native widgets  
>> are
>> >> > essential.  Emulated widgets are only a "nice to have".  Are there
>> >> times
>> >> > when an emulated UI is the better choice?  Perhaps.  ;)
>> >> >
>> >> > -Carl Gundel
>> >> > http://www.libertybasic.com
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Charles A. Monteiro [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: May 31, 2007 7:16 AM
>> To: Terry Raymond; [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
>>
>> but in my opinion its not the business community that wants
>> native widgets :), its mainly developers. Developers are way
>> more sensitive about this than most "business" users.
>
> Amen, Building custom business software the priorities run something
> like this:
> 1) fix external facing production problems
> 2) fix critical internal facing problems
> 3) build new revenue generating functions
> 4) build new cost saving functions
> 5) remove anoyances and generally make the applications easier to use
>
> Native widgets, at least as the affect our users are down at priority 5.
>
>
> Joerg
>
>
>

> +1
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 22:03:57 -0400, Dennis Smith
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> I've been "lurking" on this thread -- so just one comment -- if I had to
>> choose I would go with
>> boris -- emulated widgets give us flexibility, and there are lots of
>> other things that I would like to see.
>>
>>
>> Boris Popov wrote:
>>>
>>> Right, isn't 1 + 1 still more than 1 though? All I'm trying to find
>>> out is what problem this solves exactly if you need to maintain and
>>> improve emulation anyway. I think I'm going to retreat now, personally
>>> I would much rather see more solid printing support, font system
>>> cleanup, dllcc improvements, widgetry completion and tools, and few
>>> other things before taking on native widgets, but I don't work for
>>> Cincom and I'm not even in the top 10 clients, so this converstion is
>>> nothing more than a rant, really.
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>>
>>> -Boris
>>> (Sent from a BlackBerry)
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Samuel S. Shuster <[hidden email]>
>>> To: Boris Popov
>>> Cc: Stefan Schmiedl <[hidden email]>; [hidden email] <[hidden email]>
>>> Sent: Tue May 29 18:30:21 2007
>>> Subject: Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
>>>
>>> Boris,
>>>
>>> > So this (attached) would look okay, you think? If you are serious
>>> > about
>>> > UI, mixing native and non-native wouldn't fly most of the time, in
>>> > which
>>> > case Cincom would either have to drop emulation and do it all
>>> > native or
>>> > end up supporting both, which isn't "less work going forward" in my
>>> > book
>>> > unless there's some magic piece that I'm missing.
>>>
>>> Nothing magic. Just thoughtful design.
>>>
>>>                                  And So It Goes
>>>                                       Sames
>>> ______________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> Samuel S. Shuster [|]
>>> VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project
>>> Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
>