MacOS X
Locked
123456
123456
Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
 
|
Boris,
> Right, isn't 1 + 1 still more than 1 though? Uh... Yes... Was that a trick question? > All I'm trying to find out is what problem this solves exactly if > you need to maintain and improve emulation anyway. IF: If we do native widgets to the extent that few need the emulated... > 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. I understand. Of course, all those things are in the works. Yes, we actually have the resources, energy and vision to do them all, and to them right! And So It Goes Sames ______________________________________________________________________ Samuel S. Shuster [|] VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using? |
Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
|
|
In reply to this post by Boris Popov, DeepCove Labs (SNN)
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:
-- Dennis Smith +1 416.798.7948 Cherniak Software Development Corporation Fax: +1 416.798.0948 509-2001 Sheppard Avenue East [hidden email] Toronto, ON M2J 4Z8 [hidden email] Canada http://www.CherniakSoftware.com Entrance off Yorkland Blvd south of Sheppard Ave east of the DVP |
Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
|
|
In reply to this post by Boris Popov, DeepCove Labs (SNN)
Boris,
> I didn't say it can't coexist, all I'm asking is 'why' and all I'm > hearing is 'why not', that's the only reason for this thread :) Well, it seems I read your prior post poorly. You said: > so long as you have two models There is no reason to have more than one model. Given only one model that supports full platform native widgets with all the bells and whistles, and the fidelity and stability (and many other things, major and minor) that native widgets provide that emulated widgets never can, I'd say its way beyond why not... IMO, the question is: Why not already? And So It Goes Sames ______________________________________________________________________ Samuel S. Shuster [|] VisualWorks Engineering, GUI Project Smalltalk Enables Success -- What Are YOU Using? |
|
|
In reply to this post by Eliot Miranda-2
sorry, just one more thing was is FFI ? I take it some some interface
mechanism to C/C++, like SWIG? On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:56:29 -0400, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote: > On 5/29/07, Charles A. Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Eliot: >> >> If you feel that there are no issues now then that makes me happy :), >> yet >> I wonder what the initial development effort will be to have native >> widgets available for at least the major VW platforms i.e. Win, Mac, and >> Linux which I suppose that means support for KDE and Gnome? Again, there >> is always a trade-off, time spent on this is time not spent on something >> else, unless one has infinite resources. >> >> With regards to dev/maintenance issues, there has been or at least was a >> reason why emulated widgets was the most manegeable way of going for VW >> in >> earlier days perhaps things have changed but you would of course know >> much >> better than I would. > > > > I think its because development of the Chameleon gui (what VW's GUI used > to > be caled) preceeded the development of the FFI. When Chamelon was done > the > VM only provided user primitives which had very poor callback facilites. > But when Van Gogh was worked on DLLCC had been developed and hence it was > practicable to access the platform GUI directly through DLLCC. > > But look, if there is a decent FFI (and DLLCC isn't yet quite decent; its > slowish - less important on today's superfast machines, but still - and > its > imperfect, especially in I18N string handling) and its really true that > Smalltalk is more productive than C (something I think is proven) then it > has to be more efficient to implement the GUI/platform GUI interface in > Smalltalk. > > Java had an awful time at native widgets for a while, not sure that the >> current state of affairs is there now. I also remember,and it has been a >> while, Eclipse having a difficult time with SWT in maintaining >> cross-platform compatability. Specifically, their Linux implementation >> was >> quite behind their Windows implementation and it was sloooow. I guess if >> one did not care about cross-platform compatability then one just needed >> to live with the pain but if you did you were hosed. > > > > But what exactly were the problems? One advantage VW has is an existing > cross-platform framework that works. Its far easier to reengineer > something > functional than to do a green field design. And there are several other > advantages VW has over Java, real-world speed, footprint, IDE maturity. > > But all this is academic. The essential problem is opportunity cost. > While > implementing a native GUI might be a very good thing in the long term > doping > it will mean not doing something else that might be more important. The > tragedy is that if one isn't willing to invest in infrastructure then > gradually the foundations get poorer and poorer and have to support ever > more poorly implemented superstructure (rthe quality of the foundations > determine how well one can implement above it). > > But enough already. > > > Anyhow, as is always the case, in comes to what value will native widgets >> bring in relations to its cost in time spent and in time not spent doing >> something else. Obviously, if the cost is not that great , hey, >> fantastic >> but I have waited years to get fixes and features that could have been >> done a while back. >> >> Again, I suspect that native widgets is a popular thing so most will >> thing >> that the value added by far outweights the cost. In our case, our apps >> look good enough, we make the sell because of what they do. If I was >> selling consumer oriented stuff I may be singing a different tune, >> unless >> I could give them skins :) >> >> later >> >> -Charles >> >> >> On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:37:34 -0400, Eliot Miranda >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > On 5/29/07, Charles A. Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> I know that I'm way in the minority but I think that support for >> native >> >> widgets verges on suicidal. Unless things have changed native widget >> >> support would impose huge maintanence burdens on an engineering staff >> >> that >> >> is already stretched. >> > >> > >> > Can you expand on this Charles? Why do you think an interface to >> native >> > widgets would increase maintennance? I think the opposite (no need to >> > put >> > effort into aping ever-changing looks) but I'm interested in your >> > reasons >> > for thinking the opposite... >> > >> > >> > I really prefer the "skinable" philosophy which >> >> seems to be pretty popular i.e. look at WinAmp and others, not sure >> if >> >> they are relying on native widgets but the point is that users tend >> to >> >> want to customize their apps look i.e. care less if it looks like >> >> Windows >> >> , MAC. KDE, Gnome or the other million Linux widget sets, well maybe >> not >> >> millions .... >> >> >> >> Carl, I would think that with something like your app i.e. an IDE, >> that >> >> your users would be into the skinnable thing. >> >> >> >> I'm actually in favor of leveraging a cross-platform external >> graphics >> >> framework and actually would hope that one day the same would be done >> >> for >> >> sound. >> >> >> >> Cairo sounds good. >> >> >> >> -Charles >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:40:18 -0400, Carl Gundel >> <[hidden email] >> > >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > ...... Original Message ....... >> >> > On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:20:03 +0200 (CEST) Maarten MOSTERT >> >> > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> Oh yes please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >> >> >> A great looking Widgetry with Cairo Graphics may after all be a >> good >> >> > alternative to Dolphins modern looks. >> >> > >> >> > Not to say that Cairo or some other way to draw graphics more >> easily >> >> and >> >> > attractively would not be great, but ultimately we need native >> >> widgets. >> >> > There is simply no way for an emulated look and feel to keep up >> with >> >> the >> >> > changes that happen continously. Consider Vista. How long would >> it >> >> take >> >> > to craft a new L&F for it? Would it look acceptable, and would it >> be >> >> > obsolete as soon as it appears? >> >> > >> >> > -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/ >> -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Stefan Schmiedl
Let's hook up FLEX to Smalltalk :)
On Tue, 29 May 2007 16:12:15 -0400, Stefan Schmiedl <[hidden email]> wrote: > On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:04:18 -0700 > "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> I see where you're coming from, our fat client is also the kind of >> application that users couldn't care less how it looks visually so >> long as delivers functionality they crave, we only deploy it >> internally with no sales pressure whatsoever. > > Yay for fat clients :-) > >> But if I were building, >> say, a contact management application for much wider markets hoping >> to sell hundreds of thousands of copies to users who are spoiled by >> slick looking applications on Mac OS X and Vista, I would much rather >> see a polished uniform non-native UI instead of 95% native 5% >> emulated mix. > > +1 > > s. > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Gundel
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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Gundel
Hopefully that choice will never be made, the capability of creating
custom widgets in Smalltalk should never be removed On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:13:56 -0400, Carl Gundel <[hidden email]> wrote: > ...... Original Message ....... > On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:49:09 -0700 "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]> > wrote: >> But didn't you want both because native looks consistent with the host >> OS and emulated allowed you to customize behavior in Smalltalk? > > It's best to have both, sure. However given a choice between one or the > other I would choose the native widgets. In any case right now we have > only emulated widgets. I hope that this will be rectified sometime in > the > not too distant future. > > -Carl Gundel > http://www.libertybasic.com > -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by Dennis smith-4
+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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by OCIT
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/ |
|
|
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/ |
|
|
In reply to this post by OCIT
I definitely agree that there would be no good reason to eliminate the
emulated widgets. I do find them to be quite useful, but I want the best of both worlds. My users have written a lot of Liberty BASIC code that will break without native widgets. LB v5.0 will be the first release that breaks backwards compatibility in a disruptive way. This may not matter all too much if I can provide enough functionality with the emulated widgets. There's no doubt that some of my users will not upgrade because of this. Since we won't see native widgets in the short term, I wish that we could at least have good integration with the Mac menu system. -Carl Gundel http://www.libertybasic.com ...... Original Message ....... On Wed, 30 May 2007 09:25:03 -0400 "Charles A. Monteiro" <[hidden email]> wrote: >Hopefully that choice will never be made, the capability of creating >custom widgets in Smalltalk should never be removed > >On Tue, 29 May 2007 18:13:56 -0400, Carl Gundel <[hidden email]> >wrote: > >> ...... Original Message ....... >> On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:49:09 -0700 "Boris Popov" <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >>> But didn't you want both because native looks consistent with the host >>> OS and emulated allowed you to customize behavior in Smalltalk? >> >> It's best to have both, sure. However given a choice between one or the >> other I would choose the native widgets. In any case right now we have >> only emulated widgets. I hope that this will be rectified sometime in >> the >> not too distant future. >> >> -Carl Gundel >> http://www.libertybasic.com >> > > > >-- >Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by OCIT
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/ |
Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Gundel
But VW already has skins in form of obscurely implemented look policies. What I was preaching from the beginning of this topic eons ago is that this should be much simpler. If one had Cairo to leverage and a decent designer to come up with 2-3 professional looks for emulated widgets, I bet a good portion of native widget activists would be satisfied. Also, if we stick with the mentality that this is only for business users, we might as well give up completely. I for one would love to see cool applications being built with VisualWorks that aren't financial systems or process control etc. |
|
|
In reply to this post by Carl Gundel
Carl Gundel wote: > Since we won't see native widgets in the short term, I wish that we could > at least have good integration with the Mac menu system. > I'm in the process of implementing a native MacOS X Objective-C menu interface for VW. It'll be the most simple interface ever: Take an arbitrary Smalltalk menu and send it #installOnMacMenuBar. Picked items will transparently work the same way as invoked internally - no strings attached. This will work dynamically, of course, i.e. each window has the option of replacing the menu at any time. Stay tuned. Andre |
|
|
Cool. Can't wait. :-)
-Carl Gundel http://www.libertybasic.com ...... Original Message ....... On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:10:29 +0200 Andre Schnoor <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >Carl Gundel wote: >> Since we won't see native widgets in the short term, I wish that we could >> at least have good integration with the Mac menu system. >> > >I'm in the process of implementing a native MacOS X Objective-C menu >interface for VW. It'll be the most simple interface ever: Take an >arbitrary Smalltalk menu and send it #installOnMacMenuBar. Picked items >will transparently work the same way as invoked internally - no strings >attached. > >This will work dynamically, of course, i.e. each window has the option >of replacing the menu at any time. > >Stay tuned. > >Andre > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by Boris Popov, DeepCove Labs (SNN)
Boris Popov wrote:
Implementing the Chimera L&F was not easy, but straight forward. I had issues with performance optimization, i.e. reduction of flicker, but the real problem was a missing documentation for this task. Everyone could take Chimera as a template and derive another "skin" from it. Go ahead ;-)
Businesses bring in more revenue per customer (which is convenient), but as soon as VW can prove it is able to do more than invisible backend hi-fi, higher volumes of VAR sales (coupled with increased visibility in general) will bring additional revenue. I am confident Cincom are clever enough to not waste this potential. At least not deliberately.
Check out www.cognitone.com. Andre |
RE: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
|
|
In reply to this post by Terry Raymond
The problem with this thread is that Native Widgets are held up as an
obvious good without discussing what they actually are. The reality is problematic and complex. First Native Widgets can (and often do) suck! As James pointed out the Object Studio experience shows that even if you use the OS supplied widges as exposed in a platform vendor supplied tool you may not be happy with the result. Second Native Widgets Ain't; What are the "native widgets" on Windows? The ones you see in a modern Visual Basic applications, or how about an older Visual Basic application? The ones on the OS? The Windows98 ones that apear in parts of Excel? The ones in Word which incidentally at least up until fairly recently were totally emulated by Word because the Word team did not like the OS ones. Even in MacOS/X, supposedly the land of UI unififormity is it the iTunes look or the Finder look? Third for how long will we want just or even mostly Native Widgets? One influence of the web has been and increased acceptance of different looks, and a higher bar in terms of Graphic design (well sometimes). I bet future application frameworks will need to supply similar design freedom that the web afords. Adobe Appolo and from Microsoft Silverlight are indications of this. My intuision is that exact platform fidelity is going to become less important at least as compared to graphic design flexibility. Joerg |
Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
|
|
In reply to this post by OCIT
Wikipedia.org has several hits for FFI, one of which is foreign function
interface Dave Charles A. Monteiro wrote: > sorry, just one more thing was is FFI ? I take it some some interface > mechanism to C/C++, like SWIG? > > On Tue, 29 May 2007 14:56:29 -0400, Eliot Miranda > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> On 5/29/07, Charles A. Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> Eliot: >>> >>> If you feel that there are no issues now then that makes me happy :), >>> yet >>> I wonder what the initial development effort will be to have native >>> widgets available for at least the major VW platforms i.e. Win, Mac, and >>> Linux which I suppose that means support for KDE and Gnome? Again, there >>> is always a trade-off, time spent on this is time not spent on something >>> else, unless one has infinite resources. >>> >>> With regards to dev/maintenance issues, there has been or at least was a >>> reason why emulated widgets was the most manegeable way of going for >>> VW in >>> earlier days perhaps things have changed but you would of course know >>> much >>> better than I would. >> >> >> >> I think its because development of the Chameleon gui (what VW's GUI >> used to >> be caled) preceeded the development of the FFI. When Chamelon was >> done the >> VM only provided user primitives which had very poor callback facilites. >> But when Van Gogh was worked on DLLCC had been developed and hence it was >> practicable to access the platform GUI directly through DLLCC. >> >> But look, if there is a decent FFI (and DLLCC isn't yet quite decent; its >> slowish - less important on today's superfast machines, but still - >> and its >> imperfect, especially in I18N string handling) and its really true that >> Smalltalk is more productive than C (something I think is proven) then it >> has to be more efficient to implement the GUI/platform GUI interface in >> Smalltalk. >> >> Java had an awful time at native widgets for a while, not sure that the >>> current state of affairs is there now. I also remember,and it has been a >>> while, Eclipse having a difficult time with SWT in maintaining >>> cross-platform compatability. Specifically, their Linux >>> implementation was >>> quite behind their Windows implementation and it was sloooow. I guess if >>> one did not care about cross-platform compatability then one just needed >>> to live with the pain but if you did you were hosed. >> >> >> >> But what exactly were the problems? One advantage VW has is an existing >> cross-platform framework that works. Its far easier to reengineer >> something >> functional than to do a green field design. And there are several other >> advantages VW has over Java, real-world speed, footprint, IDE maturity. >> >> But all this is academic. The essential problem is opportunity cost. >> While >> implementing a native GUI might be a very good thing in the long term >> doping >> it will mean not doing something else that might be more important. The >> tragedy is that if one isn't willing to invest in infrastructure then >> gradually the foundations get poorer and poorer and have to support ever >> more poorly implemented superstructure (rthe quality of the foundations >> determine how well one can implement above it). >> >> But enough already. >> >> >> Anyhow, as is always the case, in comes to what value will native widgets >>> bring in relations to its cost in time spent and in time not spent doing >>> something else. Obviously, if the cost is not that great , hey, >>> fantastic >>> but I have waited years to get fixes and features that could have been >>> done a while back. >>> >>> Again, I suspect that native widgets is a popular thing so most will >>> thing >>> that the value added by far outweights the cost. In our case, our apps >>> look good enough, we make the sell because of what they do. If I was >>> selling consumer oriented stuff I may be singing a different tune, >>> unless >>> I could give them skins :) >>> >>> later >>> >>> -Charles >>> >>> >>> On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:37:34 -0400, Eliot Miranda >>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>> > On 5/29/07, Charles A. Monteiro <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> I know that I'm way in the minority but I think that support for >>> native >>> >> widgets verges on suicidal. Unless things have changed native widget >>> >> support would impose huge maintanence burdens on an engineering staff >>> >> that >>> >> is already stretched. >>> > >>> > >>> > Can you expand on this Charles? Why do you think an interface to >>> native >>> > widgets would increase maintennance? I think the opposite (no need to >>> > put >>> > effort into aping ever-changing looks) but I'm interested in your >>> > reasons >>> > for thinking the opposite... >>> > >>> > >>> > I really prefer the "skinable" philosophy which >>> >> seems to be pretty popular i.e. look at WinAmp and others, not >>> sure if >>> >> they are relying on native widgets but the point is that users >>> tend to >>> >> want to customize their apps look i.e. care less if it looks like >>> >> Windows >>> >> , MAC. KDE, Gnome or the other million Linux widget sets, well maybe >>> not >>> >> millions .... >>> >> >>> >> Carl, I would think that with something like your app i.e. an IDE, >>> that >>> >> your users would be into the skinnable thing. >>> >> >>> >> I'm actually in favor of leveraging a cross-platform external >>> graphics >>> >> framework and actually would hope that one day the same would be done >>> >> for >>> >> sound. >>> >> >>> >> Cairo sounds good. >>> >> >>> >> -Charles >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Tue, 29 May 2007 10:40:18 -0400, Carl Gundel >>> <[hidden email] >>> > >>> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > ...... Original Message ....... >>> >> > On Tue, 29 May 2007 13:20:03 +0200 (CEST) Maarten MOSTERT >>> >> > <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >> >> Oh yes please !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >>> >> >> A great looking Widgetry with Cairo Graphics may after all be a >>> good >>> >> > alternative to Dolphins modern looks. >>> >> > >>> >> > Not to say that Cairo or some other way to draw graphics more >>> easily >>> >> and >>> >> > attractively would not be great, but ultimately we need native >>> >> widgets. >>> >> > There is simply no way for an emulated look and feel to keep up >>> with >>> >> the >>> >> > changes that happen continously. Consider Vista. How long >>> would it >>> >> take >>> >> > to craft a new L&F for it? Would it look acceptable, and would >>> it be >>> >> > obsolete as soon as it appears? >>> >> > >>> >> > -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/ >>> > > > > --Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ > > |
Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
|
|
In reply to this post by OCIT
Foreign Function Interface. Its a term from the Common Lisp standard which is gradually catching on (e.g. see wikipedia)
On 5/30/07, Charles A. Monteiro
<[hidden email]> wrote: sorry, just one more thing was is FFI ? I take it some some interface |
Re: Native widgets Re: MacOS X
|
|
In reply to this post by Joerg Beekmann, DeepCove Labs (YVR)
First,
We need to specify what native is actually stands for... To that end we should go no further then VSE model, where one can have any kind of visual presentation for the widget, but it would conform to the Windows event model. If we could have a native widgets similar to the ones available in the VSE in VW ver 25.1 would be a good thing. There in VSE , all the widgets while being Win32 elements had full access from the smalltalk so they were very customizable. Also there were place for the fully custom built (in the VI) widgets, which were still somewhat Native... I think that VSE connection was mentioned few time already in this discussion, but just in case.... My 2c. --Mark Joerg Beekmann wrote: > The problem with this thread is that Native Widgets are held up as an > obvious good without discussing what they actually are. The reality is > problematic and complex. > > First Native Widgets can (and often do) suck! As James pointed out the > Object Studio experience shows that even if you use the OS supplied > widges as exposed in a platform vendor supplied tool you may not be > happy with the result. > > Second Native Widgets Ain't; What are the "native widgets" on Windows? > The ones you see in a modern Visual Basic applications, or how about an > older Visual Basic application? The ones on the OS? The Windows98 ones > that apear in parts of Excel? The ones in Word which incidentally at > least up until fairly recently were totally emulated by Word because the > Word team did not like the OS ones. Even in MacOS/X, supposedly the land > of UI unififormity is it the iTunes look or the Finder look? > > Third for how long will we want just or even mostly Native Widgets? One > influence of the web has been and increased acceptance of different > looks, and a higher bar in terms of Graphic design (well sometimes). I > bet future application frameworks will need to supply similar design > freedom that the web afords. Adobe Appolo and from Microsoft Silverlight > are indications of this. > > My intuision is that exact platform fidelity is going to become less > important at least as compared to graphic design flexibility. > > > > Joerg > > > |
«
Return to VisualWorks
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |