On Mon, 20 May 2013 14:27:51 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
<seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:58:56 -0700
"Adam Wilson" <flybo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:20:22 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
<seewebsitetocontac...@semitwist.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 12:41:08 -0700
> "Adam Wilson" <flybo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> markup is extensible, OS widgets are not.
>>
>
> I don't know where you got that idea.
>
I mean extensible in terms of look or style, sorry for the ambiguity.
Ahh, ok, I wasn't actually sure exactly what sort of "extensible" you
meant.
OS widgets require tons of custom coding to change the style, I've
done it, and I hated every minute of it. But with WPF I don't even
think twice, I just do it, because I can get the exact style in under
an hour.
Honestly, I'd consider that a major downside: Anything that
helps/encourages developers to disregard a user's system settings
(style or otherwise) is a very bad thing, IMO.
Of course, if the toolkit automatically comes with a
guaranteed user-selectable setting, outside of the app's control, to
optionally disable any custom styling on a per-app or global basis, then
that's the best solution of all: It attracts the "To hell with the
user's system settings because *I* deserve to be in control of my user's
computer" crowd and then uses that to hand control *back* to the user,
where it belongs. I've often thought about developing a system like
that.
Very few actual users care about changing the behavior of the widgets.
Most people who want to change them just want to skin them.
--
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/
