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

Pages: 1-4041-

Do all gui toolkits suck?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 7:06

After messing around with wxwidgets, qt, and gtk+, I'm under this impression. Do they all suck or am I just not reading the docs correctly

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 7:25

use visual studio. point and click; no programming required.
yes, GUI programming in general sucks.
it's too bad that very few people willingly use command line apps.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 7:27

gui programming is an anus of the highest order. so much bullshit.  i always find it much more pleasant to write a curses interface

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 7:29

Qt is the best.
Visual Studio in .NET languages is OK. In C/C++, don't touch it with a 10-foot pole (cf. NULL NULL NULL NULL). Qt is far superior.
Some languages only have wxWidgets or gtk bindings; then you're stuck.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 7:57

How can you suck not if you are using less sucking toolkit (qt) on a language that sucks (seeples)?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 8:11

swing.
never use it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 8:25

I remember using glade with python and that didn't suck too much, but I don't think it's practical for anything complex

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 9:02

>>2,3
GUI programming does not suck.  Widget toolkits suck, because they treat interfaces as data rather than code.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 9:41

>>6
Which means you will never use Java GUI.
Okay, I suppose you could try that JGR stuff but it's not like Swing is particularly complicated.  Create a container (Frame) or sub-container (Panel), give it a layout, add stuff to it, attach Listeners to the stuff.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 9:46

Shoes is a brilliant example of a toolkit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 10:00

>>10
No, it's a brilliant example of something I stick up your ass.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 10:59

CLIM

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 12:00

They all suck, because user interface is a hard problem, and programmers are not particularly suited to solve it. Those that are suited to solve it aren't programmers.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 12:21

>>13
Once MDickie is done with them, they'll surely be able to solve it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 12:28

>>3
Not really, no. You just don't know how to do it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 14:13

You suck, bring me a coffe to my table, nao!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 14:23

Yeah, they suck. But if your GUI is so complicated you need a widget toolkit, it will be too complicated to use anyway.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 15:27

>>16
>coffe
>nao

HIBT?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 15:34

Qt has both "regular widgets" and MVC-style widgets that reflect models.

I've not tried the other toolkits mentioned, but I like Qt for its large library that extends past GUI needs (it's basically j2se for c++).

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 15:45

Swing is pretty easy. Like another poster said: containers, subcontainers, layouts, components, listeners. That's it. Pretty basic. But it's bloated so there's that.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 17:02

>>19
But I want a gt toolkit, not Java. If I want java, I'll use java!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 17:58

>>21
Then want Java already.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 18:38

>>1
IUP and FLTK might be more to your liking. The former is drop-dead simple.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 23:31

OS X

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-05 23:51

Air is pretty good

OS X is horrible, I wish Apple let you use other window managers besides Cocoa,

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 0:00

>>1
You were right the first time. They all suck.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 0:01

>>25
Cocoa is not a window manager. The WindowServer is.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 6:45

Cocoa is absolutely the way to go. If you understand the basic design of the Framework, it is easy to find things you need.  The api is intelligent, simple and consistent.

The other great point is, that under OS X (Mac and Iphone) there are good complete guidelines, that tell you how your Gui should look and behave.

That is the reason for 90% of all things you do on a computer, are faster, easier and more elegant to do on mac os x!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 7:01

>>28
lol objective-c

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 9:02

>>29
lol static-typing fan

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 9:07

>>29-30
lol lol fan.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 10:11

>>29
You can use better languages if you want.
http://rubycocoa.sourceforge.net/

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 10:29

>>32
>You can use better languages if you want.

You say that, but don't provide examples to back it up.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 13:23

>>33
Apple's Objective-C runtime in C.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 14:14

>>33
>hurr

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 15:27

>>27
Whatever its called. Max OS X is just a desktop theme over BSD which they made close source with loopholes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 15:49

>>36
I don't think you understand how the BSD license works

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 17:19

Win32 API is superior.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 17:57

>>37
I don't think you understand how a woman's heart works

It's a deep ocean of secrets

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 19:22

Protip: the browser sucks less.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-06 23:17

>>39
Pile on some misery and you get a man.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-07 5:46

Qt is, without a doubt, the best GUI toolkit I've ever used. It also has some of the best documentation I've ever encountered.

The one major, crushing con is that it pretty much hijacks your entire development process - especially when you're working on a windoz computer - because it has to add an extra "moc" step where it preprocesses your code.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-07 5:48

>>42
That's why I sorta like calling Qt a language. Like Vala or something. What's the point of seeples library if it needs preprocessor to be compiled by seeples compiler?

Name: dasuraga !8GgBtN/zr. 2010-01-07 6:53

>>42
Is it possible to just use Qt's GUI constructs, or am I forced into using Qtstrings et al.? I also downloaded C++ GUI programming with Qt 4...looks pretty well done for the first couple of chapters.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-07 9:45

>>44
You should have downloaded SICP instead.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-07 14:58

C# + Visual Studio.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-07 16:48

>>46
C#+ is not a language.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-07 17:03

Seshrupples

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-07 17:10

>>48
sea octothorpes

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 1:29

>>47
/ ++
\ ++

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 1:48

>>39
SO
FUCKING
DEEEEP

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 3:55

>>52
like her vagina amirite

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 4:39

>>53
like whos vagina?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 4:55

>>54
Women's, duh. Ever seen a man with one?

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 5:05

>>55

the things I've seen, Anonymous.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 5:07

>>56
おしえて、先生!

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 6:53

>>54
MY NEY-NEY

Sorry, just came back from /tv/.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 9:04

>>58
Did you get Avatold?

Name: Jinnai and the Bugrom 2010-01-08 12:29

>>54
The Titanic's.

Name: Anonymous 2010-01-08 18:17

>>40
most browsers suck too..
minimal webkit wrappers like surf, uzbl oder vimprobable may suck less.. but since they all render the web which consists of bloated js/css/flash yada.. it still sucks when used most of the time

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 6:09

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-03 7:11

Name: Anonymous 2013-03-13 12:30

yes, they're all shit

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