Personally I don't care that much to be frank with you. I think the age of "native look" has passed and failed miserably. All the rage now is custom look guis, graphics app are strictly custom look, sound and music apps are strictly custom look and web apps of course as well. Only business apps are remaining stuborn stuck in the past.
Its no mistake that the clear winner on the GUI department is by far QT . Take a look even at iOS even iOS dropped the macos look for its own custom look. Custom look is everywhere. Even macos embraces it with Launchpad, Time machine and who knows what the future holds. Windoom has suprised us with Metro, probably not a success but seems that even the sloth giant Micro$oft has taken notice where things are heading. QT is the king of it because it has created a very flexible API which is not only capable in looking native but also very good in customisation. Well the king is web design here, but since its not considered desktop technology I will say QT for the record. Saying all that, I am not a believer of GTK. And I have heard that on windows people prefer to commit murder than use GTK. GTK is mainly linux orientated and I dont even think its even on Android. There was a bug on macos about tablet with pressure sensitivity and several other bugs with gimp and mypaint, the bottom line was that there were not enough developers for either windows or macos. GTK3 looks like diffirent story though but I still have my doubts. Looks more flexible, better designed but still does not change the fact that it lack people on non linux platforms to maintain it. And its a rather huge lib. I am interested into Clutter because my main interest is Graphics and OpenGL, so I have my own personal agenda on this. Now if you want to support GTK3 on windoom, I say go for it, its not as if you have a better choice. Maintaining a windoom port with using windoom apis will be much more of a pain anyway. So GTK3 certainly makes sense for me. I just dont see myself abandoning morphic any time soon for it. At least not this century. I prefer smalltalk to C bugs anyday. EstebanLM wrote > er... of course Mars is designed to alllow the backend you want to plug > in, > but we thinkthat Gtk3 is ok for Linux and good enough for Windows. For OSX > we have the Cocoa backend. > > So I do not understand this line of argument :) > > Esteban > > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:42 PM, kilon < > thekilon@.co > > wrote: > >> I agree, Morphic is quite messy but its design is very solid. Its just >> like >> any huge library need to go under a cleanup phase and be improved. >> >> I checked to find out if QT can be accessed from C , the short answer is >> no. >> So move along nothing to see here. >> >> I dont know what you mean by "export the functionality to C functions" if >> that means rewriting code from C++ to C , then I will have to pass, QT is >> huge , even if we utilized the whole pharo community we would not be able >> to >> do this. I think focusing on morphic and existing functionality of Mars >> will >> do for now. >> >> The way I see it best candidate so far is GTK. Not so good on windows and >> macos , but better than having to maintain separate classes for windoom , >> macos and linux. And I am not even sure if there many pharoers on windoom >> anyway, I rarely see it mentioned here. >> >> Another interesting candidate is Clutter , its based on Opengl , its a C >> library and seems to even support OpenGL ES for mobile platform and of >> course compiles on windooom, macos and linux . >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clutter_(toolkit) >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clutter_(toolkit)> >> >> I also heard its quite small and easy to use , so maybe morphic could be >> based on it. I have not used it myself so I cant vouch for it. >> >> >> Sean P. DeNigris wrote >> > >> > kilon wrote >> >> And the fact that Morphic is written in smalltalk and not just another >> C >> >> library, is hard to beat for customization >> > When one wants to do something non-standard, Morphic is insanely >> powerful. >> > The only issue I have is cleaning and refactoring. I think the >> underlying >> > idea is brilliant. >> > kilon wrote >> >> The only problem is that QT is a C++ library and AFAIK pharo FFIs do >> not >> >> support C++ libraries because of name mangling. >> > You have to export the functionality you want to use as C functions. >> Not >> > that hard, but I've only tried it for proof-of-concepts >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://forum.world.st/New-Mars-examples-Package-Browser-and-Test-Runner-tp4709937p4710156.html >> Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/New-Mars-examples-Package-Browser-and-Test-Runner-tp4709937p4710182.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
