JTK wrote:
> >Look, whether you believe it or not is irrelevant as it has no impact on
> >reality. The ability to write a cross platform application depends heavily on
> >how to communicate the UI. Have you played Quake 3?
> You mean Doom MXXXIV?
No, I meant Quake 3, hence my use of the phrase "Quake 3". But regardless, you
mention Doom. There's another example of a program created it's own interface.
In that case, it was because DOS has no GUI interface.
> No, I grew tired of fighting the exact same "Seargent"s
> with the exact same shotgun about thirty-six episodes into that "series".
Then try Quake 3. It has nothing to do with that. It's a multiplayer game. The
"single player" is nothing but the multiplayer with bots all local, rather than
real people remotely. Please try to be informed about your points of argument in
the future.
> Right, it has a much larger scope as far as UI is concerned. Doubt there's
> many tree controls of any type in Doom MMXVIIIXQ.
Irrelevant. Unless your reason for disliking Mozilla is tree code. And in
reality, it has a much SMALLER scope as far as UI goes. The UI just needs to be
able to let the player set up the game preferences, and then get into a
multiplayer game. Mozilla needs to provide the benefits of almost an entire GUI
toolkit. It also needs to be able to be able to provide those features as any
time, in a totally unpredictable order. Sometimes you'll need drop down boxes,
sometimes tree navigation, sometimes GFX rendering, sometimes script functions,
etc.
> > but without a standard UI toolkit, the only way to create an XP app
> > it to either code it once for each platform, or create your own UI. THat's
> > just the way it is.
> Exactly, so why are you arguing with me?
Actually you're arguing with us. We keep repeating that it's EASIER to write it
once than three times, and you somehow disagree.
> >Mozilla is hardly dead.
> Sez ~0.2% of the browser market.
Windows once had .2% percent of the desktop market. Do did Linux. IE once had
.2% of the browser market too. Plus there's the fact that it's not yet gold yet,
so there's zero push to distribute it on a large scale, or to draw in end users.
> > A $300 app was just released based on it.
> Which app, why, and how's it selling?
Komodo, and it's selling great, as a matter of fact. ActiveState's new Perl IDE.
I for one love it in it's own right. Of course, I love Perl, so I might be
biased there.
> My God man, can you imagine how pissed you'd be if you plunked down 3 bills
> for a copy of *Mozilla*?!?!
Ok, maybe I wasn't clear. I said BASED on Mozilla. Much like a Chrysler Town &
Country is BASED on the same frame as a Dodge Caravan. You can plunk down $25k
on a Caravan, or $35k on a T&C. Does that mean that they're the same? No, the
T&C has more to it than a vanilla Caravan. Komodo uses the Mozilla framework and
the Gecko engine with their own additions to create a new app. It looks like any
other Windows app to me, as well.
> > There are other apps in development. It's being worked on the use in the
> > embedded space.
> Ok, now you're just plagerizing the Java folks. "Wait 'til next year!"
No, I'm not saying that. I'm telling you what is here, and in the pipe. Hard
fact. Java is always "more folks will do stuff in the future when they see how
great it is!" Mozilla is "people are doing things NOW with it."
Of course, with Java, I've seen very few USEFUL Java apps. Luckily Mozilla is an
application framework, rather than a language, so we'll not see 50,000 spinning
graphic apps based on Mozilla. Java was crammed down our throats with every
browser on the market, and every crappy web page around. No one if forced to use
Mozilla.
> I've explained that now like a dozen times.
One more time won't hurt then. In fact, you can copy and paste from an old
message in your Sent box.
> >Why not leave us alone to use it as we wish? What can possibly be in it for
> >you?If it's dead to you, and you'll never use it, why are you here?
> Cause I'm pissed.
So, you're pissed off, and the rest of us have to suffer? Or do you actually
expect the entire project to come to a grinding halt because you have a gripe?
Now THAT'S laughable.
> I thought my no-nonsense, bottom-line input might make a difference, one way
> or the other. I see it's mainly fallen on deaf ears.
"Better off dead" is not no-nonsense input that is capable of making a
difference.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
