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

Pages: 1-4041-

Whats this best language for complex GUIs?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:33

I want something with a real "wow" factor right out of the box. What would you recommend?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:34

Objective C

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:35

Tcl

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:36

It really all matters on how well you program it.  You can make the same GUI with C++ and windows.h vs .net drag and drop.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:39

[i][b][o]B[o]B[/b]CODE[/i]

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:39

BBCODE

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:40

You don't need complex GUIs.  A command input prompt is sufficient.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:40

PLT Racket

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:42

The language doesnt matter, its the toolkit you use that matters. wxWidgets is probably the most popular cross-platform toolkit. I recommend pythoncard as a graphical workspace for making wxpython GUIs. CodeBlocks and wxDev-C++ are two C/C++ IDEs that have a graphical workspace for designing wxWidgets GUIs.

Use GLADE for GTK

Nokia has dropped the ball with QT so dont expect anything good to come out of that

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:45

>>9
wxWidgets
PIG DISGUSTING

Use ncurses' UI functions.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 14:56

Objective-C + Cocoa

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 15:00

>>10
ncurses is a clusterfuck.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 15:27

>>12
So is beehive masturbation, but people still do that.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 15:52

>>13
the feeling of being stung inside.

>>1
Qt

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 17:26

I'd like to use ncurses more often, but every time I do I get the feeling it'd be faster to just do things manually with ANSI escape codes.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 17:48

I quite like using C# with .NET. You might also want to look at WPF, it's hardware accelerated, though I haven't myself used it.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 18:33

>>15
ENJOY YOUR TERMINAL VENDOR LOCK-IN

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 19:08

Flash

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 21:55

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 21:59

>>17
What lock-in?
It's all standardized.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 22:02

>>20
Standards mean shit when there is only one practical vendor.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 22:06

>>19
Wikipedia's getting a new look. Learn more.
Fuck. More ``Web 2.0 QUALITY bullshite''.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-10 22:16

>>21
What vendor?
Unless you mean real hardware terminals (which no one uses anymore) there are many “vendors” who implement those standards into their products.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 0:32

>>22
From my cursory observation, it seems kind of like they're trying to copy MoinMoin. How funny.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 0:36

>>21
Standards are implied when there is only one vendor.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 2:09

>>19
I could not find a single fucking screenshot of anything done by this. Not a single example, not a youtube video. Vaporware.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 8:45

>>26
A few of the games for Gnome use it, including the tetris game and the lights-out game.

Screenshots would be mostly useless, as most of the interesting stuff is zoom/fade effects that don't come off nicely in a screenshot, but if you search around for clutter tutorials you might see some crappy pics that don't show anything worthwhile. Better off just loading up something that uses it, that lights-out game is a pretty good example of what you can get done with a small amount of code -- and it's a good example of what all you can do with pure javascript in gnome, too.

(searching youtube for a screenshot? never heard of that before, interesting.)

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 10:07

FLTK

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 10:14

>What would you recommend?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgr3o-4UbEw

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 10:20

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 11:51

>>28
OP was asking for "wow" factor, FLTK only has "wow that looks like crap" which is similar but entirely distinct.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 12:08

>>OP was asking for "wow" factor, FLTK only has "wow that looks like crap" which is similar but entirely distinct.

I think DSL Linux uses FLTK for its desktop interface, and DSL can run on a 50mhz processor and 16mb of RAM. Try that using GTK

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 12:30

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 14:16

>>32
I hate to fuck your mother, but I was doing just that back in the '90s.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 14:33

>>33
Oh wow, I remember using e15 back in the day. Didn't know it was still around.

>>32
So what? It still looks ugly as hell.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 16:25

>>28
FLTK is shit.
I'd rather use VB6.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 18:48

Fiddlesticks.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 18:50

[b]V[/v]aginabutt.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 19:26

>>35
>>So what? It still looks ugly as hell.

If youre just interested in eyecandy, google "Gnome themes" and you can see screenshots of all the downloadable desktop themes people have designed for Gnome

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 20:21

>>39
I want something with a real "wow" factor right out of the box.
Unless >>1 wanted "wow that looks bad", eyecandy was exactly the point of this thread. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 20:21

Also, learn how to quote and sage.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-11 20:35

[quote]

    Also, learn how to quote and sage.
[/quote]

I agree

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 6:51

Qt.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 9:00

>>43
Yep.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 9:47

Anything but fuck ass qt shit.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 9:56

>>43
Qt with GTK+ theme

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 10:01

>>46
i came.

>>45
Mad much?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 14:03

>>46
What? Why bother even?

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 15:01

>>48
Actually, it's just the theme I have set for Qt so that my desktop has a nice, homogeneous look.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 19:13

>>49
I get better results by going the other way. Ideally Trolltech should make a GTK+ compatible replacement library that does the obvious.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 19:48

>>50
But then you would have to port all Gtk apps to C++, because Qt has shitty language portability

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 20:09

>>51
Perhaps the obvious isn't.

But then you would have to port all Gtk apps to C++,
Not at all! Everybody's favorite C++ compiler can produce objects linkable by C you know.

Name: Anonymous 2010-05-12 21:50

>>52
Perhaps the obvious isn't.

I was making a retarded comment about how Qt is in C++ and Gtk is in C. The sad part is I can't even say YHBT because I wasn't intentionally trolling, I was just writing patent nonsense.

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-04 19:21

Name: Anonymous 2011-02-18 14:09

<-- that's cool and all, but check my doubles over there<

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