Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
> JTK wrote:
> >
> > So let me get this straight: You're saying it's simply a matter of
> > degree? That a file save dialog is so 'semantically' similar across
> > platforms that wrapping the native one makes sense, but that a *text
> > box* is so wildly different that it doesn't? Or a ***scroll bar***?!?!
> > Come on.
>
> The semantics of a text box are identical across platforms?
Yep. Certainly more so than file open dialogs.
> Are you
> serious?
C:\does\this\look\like\it\will\work\as\a\path\on\linux? /not/to/me.
\\but\I\bet\I\could\put\any\of\these\in\a\text\box\on\any\platform\that\has\one,
and::/I.bet.they/would/all/display/just/fine.
> Take a look at the URL bar in any browser and look at all the
> things that are "hooked" onto it - autocompletion, drop down popup
> lists, page proxy icons... now tell me that every platform in existence
> has all of those features available in its standard text box.
Um... one minor prob there Mr. Ballard: that's not a text box.
It's a drop-down combo box. But the overall argument applies equally
well there too.
> And that
> none of them are going to try to swallow some keypresses that you really
> need (like up/down to move through the popup list).
The control handles that for you, that's the whole point of a control!
You *want* it to swallow those keypresses as soon as possible.
> And that you can
> program all of this trivially using a cross-platform API.
>
> I know you mentioned wxWindows below, and so far it's the only sane
> point in your whole argument. But can wxWindows do all of the above in
> its text box?
>
Nope. But I bet it can in its drop-down combo box.
> > And yes, I do remember AWT. Do you remember Swing?
>
> Exactly! Swing is a "reinvented" GUI toolkit that implements everything
> itself (just like XUL).
And is widely regarded as a complete disaster, due to its slowness,
ugliness, and insane memory usage.
Sound familiar?
> My point is that EVERY major project that
> initially tried to wrap the native versions on every platform eventually
> gave up and implemented its own interface, just like Mozilla did.
And failed. Just like Mozilla did.
> Oh,
> and last time I tried it Swing was slower and more memory intensive than
> XUL (on my system at least).
>
It's a close race, I'll grant you. And not one many seem to care to
watch.
But I do have to give Netscape credit for finally dropping the "Jazilla"
concept. God, can you imagine?
> > No, I can tell them that regardless, and have done so. But I'll go ya
> > one better: wxWindows.
>
> IIRC it was evaluated at the time this decision had to be made (2 years
> ago, remember) and decided to be still too immature.
I wonder how it compares now. I bet those using it don't have to sweat
details such as keeping the arrow keys working in a text edit control.
> Also, do you know
> whether wxWindows provides sufficient flexibility to implement a full
> HTML rendering system?
>
Probably not. But I'd bet you a Coke it provides more than adequate
flexibility to implement a GUI for a web browser and a mail reader.
We're still talking about web browsers and mail readers here, right?
Not 'platforms'?
> > Oh, and does the Amiga even have a file open common dialog?
>
> Yes. Since AmigaOS 2.0.
>
Great. Does it have text boxes, drop down combo boxes, etc?
Oh, and what's the percentage of the market using AmigaOS of any
version?
> Stuart.
