On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:04:41AM +1100, Russell Shaw wrote:
> Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 10:53:11AM +1100, Russell Shaw wrote:
> >> One can make their own widget libraries based on Xlib, then write apps
> >> using the libraries. Nothing hard about that ("hard" is relative;)
> >
> > It's not 'hard' in the sense of being groundbreaking CS research, no,
> > but it would take an immense amount of time to get non-Western scripts
> > (including bidi), accessibility, copy & paste, full ICCCM compliance
> > including doing the right thing with EWMH, input (including input
> > methods), selections, etc working properly and correctly. Oh, and your
> > app doesn't look anything like any other app now.
>
> All that is done to a degree. Theming engine allows apps to look and act
> like any other system. Once you architect the full depth of the problem
> with minimal things that work at every stage, you can add more parallelable
> features whenever required.OK, sounds like it should be pretty easy for you to knock up? > > Ooh yeah, and your app has no concept of double-clicking. You could > > reimplement it and have it be completely different to the rest of the > > system (different maximum time between clicks, different maximum > > distance between click positions, etc) if you like. All the little > > stuff like this really does add up. > > Would you like a ctrl-shift+triple-middle-click popup menu? I only make > useability different if i know it's the right thing to do. No, I just want double-clicking to work. > > Please, please, stop telling people to write their own toolkits; it's > > quite possibly the worst advice I've ever heard on this list, to be > > honest. > > I didn't say it would be unconditionally easy, but to solve an > immediate engineering problem of drawing to a full screen and having > a menu, Xlib + OpenGL + Glut is fairly easy. I assume their requirements will eventually run deeper than 'full screen, one menu'. > Progressing on from that and creating new widgets is useful innovation > that can solve many more problems. No, it's not useful innovation at all. > All the answers to do anything you want is available on the web, email > lists, and in books. It's definitely not quick and easy to do the whole > thing. No, hence why someone asking how to do something eye-wateringly simple, we should recommend they use existing toolkits. > I wouldn't be recommending any of this if i found existing widget toolkits > easy to make new non-trivial widgets that run well. I've battled widget > toolkits since Windows95. The code for various existing X toolkits is > inpenetrable, and made overly complex for porting to non-X systems > that i don't require. Having thought through many problems, these > codebases can be more comprehensible, but what's the use when one > has had to figure out how to make a toolkit in order to figure out > how to fix one? He doesn't want non-trivial widgets, he wants full-screen and a menu, remember? That's not something that requires fixing a toolkit.
pgpYiEtHHmsQd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
