From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5CC9ABDE9 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:09:43 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pauillac.inria.fr (pauillac.inria.fr [128.93.11.35]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j81E9gH7002037 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:09:42 +0200 Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id QAA23642 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:09:42 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from nproxy.gmail.com (nproxy.gmail.com [64.233.182.192]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id j81E9fej024400 for ; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 16:09:42 +0200 Received: by nproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id l37so130524nfc for ; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:09:41 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YF8S1sq140Df5/qTWEuzMgyYW1BxPqLb/S4cSoI8+baquLr7Ge7H8OgLyfgr/sdBomnN85elWSz8Ihovmz+K5Op2+vXWoxjxNrf05C34kg2cXqrri4tGwBudr8WqEifYwDcOVTVVR/qUZgd5cdaMI76WcNK87uORQqJsF5ahuVw= Received: by 10.48.30.19 with SMTP id d19mr108429nfd; Thu, 01 Sep 2005 07:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.48.30.18 with HTTP; Thu, 1 Sep 2005 07:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2005 15:09:41 +0100 From: Chris Campbell To: Matt Gushee Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Does LablTk have a future? Cc: caml-list@inria.fr In-Reply-To: <431682CE.5000100@havenrock.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline References: <4311DA63.4010104@havenrock.com> <200508301445.08793.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <3d13dcfc0508300847414abedb@mail.gmail.com> <200508301708.24941.jon@ffconsultancy.com> <431682CE.5000100@havenrock.com> X-Miltered: at concorde with ID 43170BA6.000 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Miltered: at nez-perce with ID 43170BA5.001 by Joe's j-chkmail (http://j-chkmail.ensmp.fr)! X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 labltk:01 osx:01 osx:01 gtk:01 kde:01 api:01 ...:98 ...:98 wrote:01 wrote:01 interfaces:01 native:02 conventions:02 hmm:02 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_BY_IP autolearn=disabled version=3.0.3 On 01/09/05, Matt Gushee wrote: >=20 > Hmm, I'd like to think so. Jef Raskin[*] wrote something to the effect > that we need better interfaces than what we have now, and something > better will necessarily be different--with which I heartily agree. >=20 > But in terms of "industry acceptance" in the near term ... I've been > involved in a number of discussions of why Tk is awful (or not), and one > point that always comes up is that users allegedly don't like Tk apps > because they look different. That's why I was concerned about the development of a gui with regards to windows and osx. If it doesn't look like Aqua, if it doesn't look like Windows it's not going to work. Once you factor in feel you might as well forget it, especially on OSX. People are less than enthusiastic about X apps on OSX. They don't behave like Aqua apps and don't follow Mac conventions.=20 Similarly with GTk on windows without skinning. I also don't see a point in reinventing the wheel. For Linux someone could probably do better than KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment given a couple of years, and some might actually use it but no one is gonna like it on OSX or Windows (which is used by most people). The best option is to write a high level toolkit over a gui and make it general enough to use the native gui. Let's face it, most systems have buttons, windows, etc and they serve the same purpose on all systems even if they don't look or behave the same on all systems.=20 It's only the api that's different from a programmers perspective and as programmers that's where the problem is. Don't turn a problem for programmers into a problem for users, because they're the ones who decides the popularity of your software in the end. Paul Graham wrote about the problems programmers have seeing it from the user perspective, but I'm not sure which article it is... might be "Revenge of the nerds". Chris