Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

programming GUIs

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-13 10:54

Hey /prog/:

Programming a GUI is so annoying. But I've only done it in java. Is there a toolkit out there that's better than swing (as far as ease of use goes)?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-13 10:59

GUI toolkits are a PITA at the best of times; Swing takes that property, wraps it in Java and shoves it right up your arse.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-13 14:53

SWT for Java

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-13 15:21

Windows.Formsです.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-14 16:51

Annoying GUI programming? Java? You ever done win32?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-14 18:12

Try Qt. You'll love it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-14 18:41

>>5
win32 isn't too bad most of the time so long as you do it from VB rather than C++. Gets painful if you want to do advanced stuff though; making calls to C++ functions from a language that doesn't understand pointers is a real headache.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-14 19:08

Whatever GIMP is using, use the exact opposite.  :)

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-14 22:36

>>1
jigloo, plugin for eclipse. great swing tool kit offering vb-like development process.


Name: Anonymous 2006-04-15 1:15

>>7

Yes, I agree. I especially hate strings in C++ with Win32. EVERYTHING is a pointer!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-15 7:43 (sage)

>>5
Win32 >>>>>>>>>>>>> Java

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-15 15:01

|EVERYTHING is a pointer!
This statement is true, but not for the reason you think it is.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-15 17:00

>>12

Yeah I know, but it's kind of a hassle IMO to split a string as opposed to C#.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-15 17:57

Qt is awesome, try it.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-16 1:21

>>13
http://www.boost.org/doc/html/string_algo.html
now why the fuck wasn't this part of STL in the first place? :(

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-16 16:48

>>6
>>14
Same person

But I would try Qt.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-17 6:06

>>15
Because the STL sucks.

>>16
Not same person, you fucking moron. Should I STFU just because I have the same opinion as someone else? No.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-17 7:43 (sage)

>>6
>>14
>>17
Same person.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-17 9:48 (sage)

>>18
>>19
>>20
Same person.

Name: Someone Else 2006-04-17 12:10

>>19
Lies!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-17 12:41

>>21
>>21
Same person.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-17 12:59

>>21
>>22
>>23
Same person.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-17 16:08

>>24
same person

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-18 2:20

>>25
Different person.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-18 5:51

>>24
NO U

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-18 8:57

This is one of the reasons I love programming on a mac :D

So stupid easy to do, and make it pretty.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-18 12:27

Never tried SWT for Java but I like OS integration.
WxWidgets's not too bad, and GTK is a pain.

Name: DareToDare 2006-04-25 4:08

GTK is a pain if you had to micro-manage, QT might be better as I heard there is less micro-maangement.  If you don't mind using the Microsoft framework a little you try doing it in Visual J#.  As far as SWT it is analogous to AWT/Swing in Java with a difference - SWT uses a rich set of native widgets (more info @ http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-SWT-Design-1/SWT-Design-1.html).  I have only used a little swing myself and its not some much that it is hard is as it is annoying, but thats my own personal rant.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-25 14:42

GTK is meh. FLTK is Ok. wxWidgets is pretty good. FOX is definately my favourate though.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-25 19:16

This thread is useful. You wouldn't think so but I find various simple, quick "GTK is meh" and "wxWidgets is pretty good" comments useful because I haven't used either and now I have a good idea of what to try first.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-25 19:20

Ugh, I hate Swing.  Visual Studio made making GUIs fun.  I don't think I'd ever bother coding a GUI by hand, I'd rather focus on real stuff.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-25 20:18

Considering the current state of /b/, I must mention the glorious GUI toolkit that was Magic User Interface (aka MUI) on the Amiga. That shit ruled like six ways to saturday. Though it was so advanced that it was slow as all hell on an A500, really a 68030 or better was required to run it well. Four megs or more of RAM would've been nice too.

So I'm kind of surprised and disgusted that something like MUI hasn't sprung up on top of X11 or something. For the time being I'm settling for GTK# on top of Mono, because at least in C# 2.0 you can do things like button.Clicked += delegate { DoSomethingOrOther(666, 42) }; instead of fagging around with a thousand and fifteen callback methods.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-26 4:42

>>31
I take QT/KDE and actually code GUI by hand. Connecting signals and such is a little annoying but most of that is actuallt copy-pasta. I really do not like Designer generated .ui/.h files. They are full of fail and misleading. Then again, I've seen projects entirely written using Designer (qt3.x tho). Qt4.x Designer do not have code editing capabilities for some reason.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-26 4:45

but most of that is actuallt copy-pasta
If you need to use copypasta you're doing it wrong. Use a language that allows higher levels of abstraction.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-26 6:40

>>34 Use a language that allows higher levels of abstraction.
Explain to me, how you take higher level of abstraction and tell every button to do different things without duplicating semantics?

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-26 6:56

>>35
Macros.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-26 7:23 (sage)

>>36
same thing!

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-27 14:49

>>35
Generic programming. Support for higher-order functions would be a good start.

Macros are a quick, unsafe and wrong solution.

Hello shotgun, meet foot. Foot, this is shotgun.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-27 14:57

Macros are a quick, unsafe and wrong solution
Sure in some languages. C++ i'm looking at you. Us Lisp weenies have real macros.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-27 15:31

>>39
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-27 18:47

>>38
Generic my ass. Macros my ass. Get a real duck typing language for fuck's sake.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-28 3:28

>>41
Hi I'm a Python fanboy, I use the names of animals to describe language features that have existed for decades.

fix'd

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-28 7:27

>>42
"Duck-typing" is the Pythonic way of describing that feature.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-28 7:33

>>43
That's what I said isn't it? Fucking "Pythonic" garbage.

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-28 11:07

"isn't" is not Pythonic. Use "is not".

Name: Anonymous 2006-04-29 10:58 (sage)

>>41
ITYM "language that supports dynamic typing". Liek LISP for instance. HTH, HAND.

(... python weenies who think everything was invented in their weak-ass, horribly implemented POS toy language ...)

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-21 9:34

Thread.bump('1144939791');

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-21 15:22

>>46
Ignorant lispnik doesn't know the difference between duck typing and dynamic typing but thinks they're the same thing because he can't conceive of anything Lisp hasn't done first. Shocking.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-21 15:35

>>48
Note the date. >>46 is dead by now. Show some respect.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-21 17:06

>>48
Surely you'd get duck typing through generics

Name: 50 2010-04-21 17:11

On second thought, Lisp did beat python to duck typing (and I'd presume smalltalk beat lisp). IF YOU'D READ YOUR SICP, you would recall that closure-objects dispatch on the method name (or duck typing). Duck typing is a misnomer anyway because it has nothing to do with the type system.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-21 17:25

>>51
The thing about >>48-kun and his like is that being willfully ignorant enables you to put down a thing without understanding it first. It especially helps if you do not understand your own position very well at all either. Lisp doesn't have ``duck typing'' in exactly the sense that Lisp doesn't name any of its features ``duck typing''.

Name: Anonymous 2010-04-21 18:38

GUI in java wouldn't be so annoying if the tutorials didn't all use java's own ASS ON HAT RETARDED standard (read: non-null) layout(s).
That and they usually hide what you want amongst 1000 other methods and superclass/abstract methods.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-26 22:26

Name: Anonymous 2011-01-31 21:36

<-- check em dubz

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 3:33

<

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List