On 2012-11-01 12:33, Mark Morgan Lloyd wrote: > > That is a matter of opinion, and other developers would argue the point.
When I say "windows centric" I mean LCL imitating the WinAPI in LCL-GTK2, LCL-Qt and LCL-Carbon. Most of the times that just doesn't fit. > "standard bearer" for workstation OSes. If that means that workstation > UIs and widget sets are heavily influenced by Windows, that might be > something best lived with. As for UI. We have found with our company testing that as long as the UI is similar (no need to be identical to native UI), that is good enough for end-users to be able to use your application. Windows users have no problem learning to use iOS or Android devices or the millions of Web Apps (gmail, outlook.com, etc) - yet the UI is completely different to their desktops. Then you also get companies like Embarcadero[1] and projects like Qt[2] promoting the idea of custom looking UI to make your product stand out from the crowd. The ability to brand your application - a common marketing tactic. [1] VCL styles in the XE range of products, and Firemonkey styles. [2] Qt5 will have a new style, Forge, which will look identical on all platforms. > However I (for one) am strongly in favour of having at least one widget > set that will run on top of X or even a frame buffer, discarding I have renewed interest in targeting the Linux Frame Buffer, and with the same design changes, open fpGUI's design up for other possible backends like OpenGL, SDL, Cairo, Haiku etc with much less effort. A new branch of this development will start shortly. That would hopefully mean fpGUI can target Android and Raspberry Pi development with better performance from the GPU. Regards, - Graeme - _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
