Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search

[REBOL] Re: What's native?

From: nitsch-lists:netcologne at: 22-Jun-2004 4:12

On Dienstag, 22. Juni 2004 00:14, Carl Read wrote:
> From here... > > > > "When Java applications are constructed with Eclipse's Standard Widget > Toolkit (SWT) and deployed to different operating platforms, they adopt > native window manager look and feel. On Linux Motif or the GTK, Microsoft > Windows, Mac OS X, Photon, AIX, HP/UX platforms, and other supported > platforms, Eclipse users can develop applications in Java with the true > look-and-feel of the platform." >
When they code at that platform. Or when the toolkit can really do magic with design. Else each item looks very native, but the overall layout: somehow the things dont fit together. Which is why VB has this visual gui-editor to drag and size like with a paint-program.
> One of the complaints I receive about REBOL is it doesn't adopt the > look-and-feel of the OS it's running on, though if it did, my complaint > would be the program I'm using isn't consistant across platforms. So, I've > come to believe the user should be given a choice in the matter, and > ideally for each program they run. >
My complain is,, i cant optimize the behaviour and interaction of widgets that easily. But then i know rebol a lot better than other toolkits.
> Skins written in View offer a way to achieve this, though they'll always be > playing catchup as the various platforms' native GUIs get improved, or > completly re-written. This'll need to be attempted though, if REBOL is > ever to catch on in a reasonably big way. > > And while we (well I am, anyway:) are talking about catching on, this makes > for interesting reading... > > > > And especially for those who think Microsoft got where it is today mostly > through dodgy business practices.
Aha. Well, i find it a bit confusing. For one Peoples feel forced to upgrade and upgrade, because Office N is not compatible with Office N + 1. OTOH MS does everything to run apps from 1983, and Joel says "see, they stay compatible". Maybe its tricky to be compatible to both. And then Joel says this: (Please understand that I'm talking about large trends here, and therefore when I say things like nobody" I really mean "fewer than 10,000,000 people," and so on and so forth.)" I guess the MSDN Magazine Camp defines "nobody" similar, and argues nobody is using such old software. so what? But he says too: People have no problems with all this web-apps. Which don't have native L&F. And web-apps rule. So..
> -- Carl Read