[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality contr

From: tech
Subject: Re: GNUstep roadmap (was Re: [Suggestion] GNUstep-test for quality control)
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 20:47:19 -0600
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.4i

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 03:22:05AM +0200, Helge Hess wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 22, 2003, at 11:42 AM, Richard Frith-Macdonald 
> wrote:
> >Rennaissance is great, but doesn't make the difference. Unfortunately.
> >
> >Maybe it would if we had a gui editor for it...
> Well, this is absolutely a non-issue. This was demonstrated by Windows, 
> GNOME, KDE, Mozilla, ... Having a visual editor does help your for 
> VisualBasic-type of programmers.
> "Real programmers" ;-), can (and usually want to!) write UI code in 
> text form. The easier that is, the better. IMHO XUL is *very* good 
> here, Renaissance is a first step towards that.

On the last Qt vs. Cocoa flamewar on cocoa-dev, the comment was made
that one very obvious difference between the two is that with Qt,
there's a GUI builder, but real men don't use it.  In Cocoa, there's a
GUI builder, and only fools don't use it.  I'm a firm believer in using
a GUI to build a GUI, and vim for everything else...

> >Of all the applications that I can see which might get us real notice 
> >within the Apple developer community, a superior replacement for 
> >InterfaceBuilder, which would run on MacOS, GNU/Linux, BSD etc  *and* 
> >produce stored GUI information in a format portable between all these 
> >systems seems the best bet.
> Well, actually I agree with this. Something which is easily extensible. 
> Like Eclipse.

I can only speak for myself, but I would be looking a lot harder at
renaissance for my (OSX only) app if it had something along those


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]