From: Miro Jurisic (macdev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-25 18:33:53
In article <087d01c48af5$e99a9860$a901000a_at_mat>,
"Mathew Robertson" <mathew.robertson_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> good example - text fields in Mozilla work the same way as Win32 edit fields,
> and mostly the same way as edit fields on most Linux libraries.
> So do the Mozilla coders choose to implement different functionality for a
> different platform, or do they make the application interface consistant
> across all platforms? If the answer is OS consistancy (rather than
> application consistancy), then we are back to square one of ont having a
> truely cross-platform library.
I don't know why you believe that "truely" cross-platform implies a uniform user
experience on all platforms. Uniform user experience on all platforms tends to
mean wrong user experience on all but possibly one, and users (at least Mac
users, because they tends to have high expectations of their applications)
Put simply, in professional Mac development, developer convenience is secondary
to user experience, and the market has shown time and again that Mac users are
willing to pay for products that respect them. If you are designing a
cross-platform framework, you have to understand this.
To answer your other question, I believe that a boost C++ GUI framework would
gain adoption on Mac OS X _if_ it is designed with users, not developers, in
mind -- which is precisely what I am trying to explain here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk