46 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
46 lines
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
From: fuzz at sys.uea.ac.uk (Farzad Pezeshkpour)
|
|
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 1999 10:54:08 +0100
|
|
Subject: The Future of Tk?
|
|
References: <371E964F.C531C2A@istar.ca>
|
|
Message-ID: <7fmruj$gtm@cpca3.uea.ac.uk>
|
|
Content-Length: 1119
|
|
X-UID: 1372
|
|
|
|
> I don't want to say that this is bad for Tcl users but what about all
|
|
> the other languages that use Tk? Isn't writting multiplatform GUI
|
|
harder
|
|
> using native components.
|
|
|
|
I don't think that implementing all widgets using custom code on all
|
|
platforms is 'lightweight' at
|
|
all. The issues about lightweight components for me are performance and
|
|
cross-platform
|
|
compatibility. By using native components, Tk has moved closer to this
|
|
goal. Yes, the differences in
|
|
look (and to some extent, feel) of components, when usig native widgets,
|
|
can be every-so-slightly
|
|
compromised - however, in the case of Tk, I don't find this a major
|
|
worry, irrespective of the
|
|
manner by which I access Tk (Tcl, Perl, C etc).
|
|
|
|
> I think Java made big step forward in
|
|
> abandoning the native components and using lightweight > ones in
|
|
Swing.
|
|
|
|
I've got a lot good words to say about Swing, but I don't think that
|
|
it's too smart to emulate the
|
|
<insert os/toolkit> look'n'feel on the same os/toolkit. The results are
|
|
typically a poor imitation
|
|
and always slow. It reminds me of the days when I used ParcPlace's
|
|
Smalltalk - very bad!
|
|
|
|
Fuzz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|