New Ada portable GUI Library?
in [ADA]
|
Prev: Problem with saving file from GPS on Vista
Next: (slightly OT) Open Source licences? (was: Re: New Ada portable GUI Library?)
From: Pascal Obry on 13 Jan 2008 09:22 Pascal Obry a �crit : > Stephen Leake a �crit : >> Lucretia <lucretia9(a)lycos.co.uk> writes: >> >>> Ada GUI Thick bindings >>> ------------------------ >>> Ada GUI Thin bindings >>> ------------------------ >>> C abstraction layer <- Can be provided via C or Ada depending on >>> lowest layer >>> ------------------------ >>> X11 | GtkAda | QT >> >> GtkAda is already a thick binding. Surely you meant Win32 there? > > No, I think Luke meant Gtk+. And the graph should be: Ada GUI Thick bindings ------------------------ Ada GUI Thin bindings ------------------------ C abstraction layer <- Can be provided via C or Ada <- depending on lowest layer ------------------------ X11 | Gtk+ | QT ----------------- X11 ------------------------ Pascal. -- --|------------------------------------------------------ --| Pascal Obry Team-Ada Member --| 45, rue Gabriel Peri - 78114 Magny Les Hameaux FRANCE --|------------------------------------------------------ --| http://www.obry.net --| "The best way to travel is by means of imagination" --| --| gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-key C1082595
From: Michael Bode on 13 Jan 2008 14:58 "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox(a)dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: > Actually this is an independent issue. Nothing prevents us from inheriting > the look-and-feel of the target platform. The look-and-feel should/could > propagate up the layers, provided the design supports look-and-feel > management. IMO it should. So what look-and-feel do you use on Linux? Please don't say Athena Widgets. There are 2 major desktops: KDE (Qt) and Gnome (Gtk). If you want some kind of 'native' look-and-feel you better choose one of them and don't forget support for native themes. Even Swing can do that. > However, weighting look-and-feel and an ability to have a standard library, > I would say that I am ready to sacrifice look-and-feel. You won't attract many GUI developers if their apps look crappy with your lib. -- No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment. -- R.A. Heinlein
From: Dmitry A. Kazakov on 13 Jan 2008 16:00 On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:58:22 +0100, Michael Bode wrote: > "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox(a)dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: > >> Actually this is an independent issue. Nothing prevents us from inheriting >> the look-and-feel of the target platform. The look-and-feel should/could >> propagate up the layers, provided the design supports look-and-feel >> management. IMO it should. > > So what look-and-feel do you use on Linux? None. Under inheriting I mean an ability to configure look-and-feel rather than to program it. Is there much difference between KDE and GNOME left as they rush to embrace MS Windows? BTW, I enjoyed OPEN LOOK mostly for its professional graphic design. >> However, weighting look-and-feel and an ability to have a standard library, >> I would say that I am ready to sacrifice look-and-feel. > > You won't attract many GUI developers if their apps look crappy with > your lib. Why should they look that way? Provided the library should specify look-and-feel. I doubt that but anyway, what prevents anybody educated in graphic design from designing it professionally? Programmers should keep their hands off, and everything will be OK! (:-)) -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de
From: Michael Bode on 13 Jan 2008 16:53 "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox(a)dmitry-kazakov.de> writes: > Is there much difference between KDE and GNOME left as they rush to embrace > MS Windows? BTW, I enjoyed OPEN LOOK mostly for its professional graphic > design. Of course. If you are running Gnome and install theme foo then all your Gnome/Gtk apps will look fooish. Your Qt apps won't. Except maybe foo looks like the Qt default. But then changing the Gnome theme to bar will break that similarity. If you roll your own GUI this will work with neither KDE nor Gnome. Since KDE and Gnome are probably the most popular desktops you should get that working with at least one of them. The last thing Linux needs is another inconsistent (with the rest of the system) looking GUI. For Windows and OS X things are easier. Steve tells you how things should look. > Why should they look that way? Provided the library should specify > look-and-feel. Maybe I misunderstood. Who will draw the widgets? Either Ada (the Ada lib) does it or you leave it to some OS specific GUI layer. Which one? -- No intelligent man has any respect for an unjust law. He simply follows the eleventh commandment. -- R.A. Heinlein
From: Lucretia on 13 Jan 2008 17:22
On Jan 13, 1:28 pm, Stephen Leake <stephen_le...(a)stephe-leake.org> wrote: > Lucretia <lucret...(a)lycos.co.uk> writes: > > Ada GUI Thick bindings > > ------------------------ > > Ada GUI Thin bindings > > ------------------------ > > C abstraction layer <- Can be provided via C or Ada depending on > > lowest layer > > ------------------------ > > X11 | GtkAda | QT > > GtkAda is already a thick binding. Surely you meant Win32 there? No, I meant it as an option. Like I've already covered in another post, I personally would just use Gtk and wrap it in abstract C calls ready for the thick Ada code. Luke. |