Re: [boost] Re: Java style GUI in C++

From: Mathew Robertson (mathew.robertson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-25 17:55:00

> > Unless I missed completely missed something about OSX, you would preferably 
> > code it in Objective-C (which is a fantastic language for creating GUI's).  
> > In which case, GUI's for most other platforms are coded in C, C++, Delphi, 
> > VB, etc. wouldn't have a place on OSX.
> 
> Apple has two first-class APIs to the OS. One is C, one is Objective-C. The C 
> APIs can (obviously) be directly called from C++.
> 
> > Is the prefered language to program GUI's on OSX, C++?
> 
> No. C or Objective-C. The C APIs and the Objective-C APIs are approximately 
> equipotent.

Most moder GUI development for Unicies, uses C++; for Win32 it is either C, C++, VB, or Delphi.  

So the question then... would a Boost GUI library (which is C++) be unlikely to be used on OSX?

> > > The quality of the user interface of all of those applications is something 
> > > that I, as a professional Mac developer, would be ashamed to ship. (They 
> > > are not all equally bad, though.)
> > 
> > you highlighted my point exactly - they are bad, compared to native 
> > applications, because it is _really hard_ to make a cross-platform GUI 
> > library.  They are good, particularily considering this fact.
> 
> Really hard, yes. Really important, too, if you want to ship a product that 
> doesn't suck.
> 
> > > I firmly believe that the problem of producing a cross-platform framework 
> > > that 
> > > is able to accommodate the user experience demands of several platforms is 
> > > difficult and tractable.
> > 
> > tractable => "Easily managed or controlled; governable"  (dictionary.com)
> > 
> > is the problem "difficult" or "easy"?  (my guess that you have miss-type the 
> > last bit of the sentence - although I'm not sure which way it was meant...)
> 
> Ah, it would appear that I was not using "tractable" properly. Thanks for the 
> correction. What I meant it "possible to solve given a sufficiently capable and 
> motivated group of engineers". I believe the problem is hard, but not without a 
> solution. I also think that there's a partial solution that is considerably 
> simpler, and that's what people seem to be shipping today.

I agree completely - and is why this "Java style GUI..." is a good discussion topic.

Mathew