JTK wrote: > Right, nothing wrong with a complied GUI. Plenty wrong with an > interpreted GUI.
Why? > > Mozilla's use of XML for it's UI language > Why does a UI need a "language"? I don't want my browser buttons to do > anything but push and do what they say on the label. That's what XUL does, so what's the problem? > > adds a truly insignificant amount of > > processing overhead, especially when compared to the increased portability > > it introduces. > If it were "truly insignificant", you wouldn't need to qualify that with > "compared to the increased portability it introduces." It'd swim on its > own, wouldn't it? It does. I said "especially when compared...", which is an added comparison, not a qualification. > > And now with XUL caching enabled, that tiny amount is further cut > > down. > So it's "truly insignificant", but somebody figured an "XUL cache" was > necessary anyway. Who's kidding who here rabbi? No one os fooling anyone. Can you please stop with the rabbi stuff now? I've asked you several times. > Indeed. Nor is beating the "JTK bothers me because he speaks too plain" > drum worthy of the Savior's precious time. But here we are. Your plain speaking bothers no one. Your constant misstatements of fact, lies, and accusation bother many though. -- jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ] email [ jesusx @ who.net ] web [ http://www.mozillanews.org ] tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ] warning [ "I hate cats. You never know if they're dead." - E. Schrodinger ]
