10 ms·

I was building GUIs in pure Win32, with my own C++ wrapper classes for Win32 and later with OWL and MFC. I'd say building Win32 GUIs in C++ was easier than cur

I was building GUIs in pure Win32, with my own C++ wrapper classes for Win32 and later with OWL and MFC. I'd say building Win32 GUIs in C++ was easier than current Web stack. Same with Java AWT and Swing libraries. Objective C / Cocoa is more complex - never really managed to learn it beyond basic stuff, maybe with Swift it's easier. Elm is close to those desktop GUI frameworks, but functional instead of OO. But Tcl/Tk is the most easiest GUI toolkit ever, too bad the resulting UI does not look professional.

sangnoir 10y ago
> I'd say building Win32 GUIs in C++ was easier than current Web stack. >Same with Java AWT and Swing libraries. I will have to vehemently disagree. I have no experience with Win32 GUIs, but I still have nightmares about wrangling nested LayoutManagers: comparing that to the current state of the web (especially after Flexbox) is downright absurd. I am very happy with: Typescript + (Sass|LESS) + framework (Angular|Bootstrap|ReactJS). I think the 'hardcore' devs who would rather avoid using abstractions (frameworks/JS transpilers) will have a torrid time with the front-end.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  And I have to disagree with you. Doing UIs in native frameworks like JavaFX or even in a pure C++/WinAPI, is much more saner than doing any kind of UI in HTML/CSS. Ignoring flexbox for a second, which is kind of bleeding edge new thing, remind me - how exactly do you vertically center stuff with CSS? :P. My two main issues with doing UIs on the web are: - web stack is terribly unpredicatable; you're trying to force an inherently document-layout-oriented model into a free-form 2D canvas, which leads to layouts exploding whenever user switches browser/OS/device/timezone/whatever. - the code makes no sense; no matter how crappy the Java APIs were (due to deficiencies of the language mostly), the code you wrote at least did what it said, because it expressed the UI concepts explicitly. HTML/CSS is a huge mess of insanity when it comes to doing UI work. I mean, in what reasonable world should the idea "center this" be expressed as "set the left and right margin to 'auto'"? CSS is full of stuff like that. (And then there are some silly philosophies like "separation of form and content" which everyone touts, but rarely anyone actually follows; see e.g. grid layouts.)
  - MattSayar 10y ago
    > how exactly do you vertically center stuff with CSS? :P I know this was just a throwaway comment, but seriously, I love this site: http://howtocenterincss.com/ http://howtocenterincss.com/
  - pjmlp 10y ago
    I have returned back to native UIs development (WPF/Forms/XAML/Android), after 4 years of web development, couldn't be happier in what concerns my productivity.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    > Ignoring flexbox for a second Not ignoring Flexbox, this is the crux of my problem with web development. There are 8,476 different frameworks, transpilers, toolkits, and what have you that all kinda-sorta do the same things. When first approaching this world you get confronted with alphabet soups of packages all combined to "make front end development sane". Everybody seems to have their own soup, though, and many claim that theirs is the way to do development. The flexibility that so many Node-style devs love leads directly to this impenetrability and fragility.
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > Not ignoring Flexbox, this is the crux of my problem with web development. There are 8,476 different frameworks, transpilers, toolkits, and what have you that all kinda-sorta do the same things If they do the same thing, pick one and dig in. I really don't get this argument - walking down the cereal aisle will not generate this amount of antipathy despite the amount of choice available; why on earth should development different? The optimal taste, texture and crunchiness is different for everyone, you can even default to the traditional oats or corn flakes if the newfangled cereals are too brightly-colored or too confusing for you[1]. I love the JS ecosystem and its Cambrian explosion - lots of ideas (good and bad) being tried out by other people[2] and the good ideas tend to be adopted by the more mainstream projects. 1. This is obviously a thinly veiled allusion 2. This is important - don't be the guinea pig and don't jump onto the latest and greatest.
- aclsid 10y ago
  The difference between what you are doing and what desktop UI has always enjoyed is a component system that works flawlessly. The Web Components specification is a good step forward in this regard, but as many people have pointer out, try to do something trivial like a modal wizard in Java/.NET and try the same thing on the web side.
anodari 10y ago
I think we could divide in two types of interfaces: for data entry and for graphics/complex. For data entry, html/css is extremely easy, but for complex specialized interfaces it could be more dificult.
totalcrepe 10y ago
But none of your examples are as cross system portable and "native/normal feel" as writing an app that only works in chrome/chromium. For the decades leading up to this stage cross system GUIs with a few simple library dependencies have been an unachieved "easy" task. Web remains as frustrating as ever because now we need it to work on all non portable browsers even on platforms that supports better ones. Then we want new features at an alarming pace that GTK could never normalize across *nixes. Using the only non-browser that I think sort of got cross system portability working as an example.. I don't think things functioned reliably against the weird m$, Ibm and gcj Java implementations. But since they aren't really GUIs themselves with bookmarks, and familiar menus, no one gets upset when you tell them to replace an odd Java implementation before running a Java program.
- douche 10y ago
  Why is native/normal feel the end-all-be-all of UI systems? I've never quite understood why this is so desirable. Or why the answer seems to be using a shoddy UI system stuffed in a browser frame.
  - nurettin 10y ago
    I know a great coder who refuses to start personal projects because he can't find UI libraries which are: 1. Cross-platform across mac-win-linux-android-ios 2. Built for a compiled language such as pascal or C++ 3. Built to use native controls 4. Integrated to registered libraries through an interface like activex 5. Accompanied by a UI builder with design-time and runtime states and component builders. 6. Easily integrated to embedded and server-side SQL. Sometimes we impose too many constraints on ourselves and never actually start anything. Fear of success?
    - vram22 10y ago
      Good point. And actually, Delphi matches many of those bullet points. Expensive, though. (The promo of the free Delphi 10.1 Berlin Starter version just got over on Aug 9. First time in a a while, maybe, since Turbo Delphi Explorer.)
witty_username 10y ago
Qt is easy with Qt Designer and looks professional.
- hellofunk 10y ago
  I wouldn't call Qt Designer "easy" in any sense of the word, but possibly that is because I have found how good that sort of tool can be, and it is called Interface Builder (Xcode), which isn't perfect, but should be what Designer strives for.
  - witty_username 10y ago
    It was easy for me to arrange widgets in a layout and connect signals and slots.
bigato 10y ago
> But Tcl/Tk is the most easiest GUI toolkit ever, too bad the resulting UI does not look professional. ttk does

sangnoir 10y ago

> I'd say building Win32 GUIs in C++ was easier than current Web stack. >Same with Java AWT and Swing libraries. I will have to vehemently disagree. I have no experience with Win32 GUIs, but I still have nightmares about wrangling nested LayoutManagers: comparing that to the current state of the web (especially after Flexbox) is downright absurd. I am very happy with: Typescript + (Sass|LESS) + framework (Angular|Bootstrap|ReactJS). I think the 'hardcore' devs who would rather avoid using abstractions (frameworks/JS transpilers) will have a torrid time with the front-end.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
And I have to disagree with you. Doing UIs in native frameworks like JavaFX or even in a pure C++/WinAPI, is much more saner than doing any kind of UI in HTML/CSS. Ignoring flexbox for a second, which is kind of bleeding edge new thing, remind me - how exactly do you vertically center stuff with CSS? :P. My two main issues with doing UIs on the web are: - web stack is terribly unpredicatable; you're trying to force an inherently document-layout-oriented model into a free-form 2D canvas, which leads to layouts exploding whenever user switches browser/OS/device/timezone/whatever. - the code makes no sense; no matter how crappy the Java APIs were (due to deficiencies of the language mostly), the code you wrote at least did what it said, because it expressed the UI concepts explicitly. HTML/CSS is a huge mess of insanity when it comes to doing UI work. I mean, in what reasonable world should the idea "center this" be expressed as "set the left and right margin to 'auto'"? CSS is full of stuff like that. (And then there are some silly philosophies like "separation of form and content" which everyone touts, but rarely anyone actually follows; see e.g. grid layouts.)
- MattSayar 10y ago
  > how exactly do you vertically center stuff with CSS? :P I know this was just a throwaway comment, but seriously, I love this site: http://howtocenterincss.com/ http://howtocenterincss.com/
- pjmlp 10y ago
  I have returned back to native UIs development (WPF/Forms/XAML/Android), after 4 years of web development, couldn't be happier in what concerns my productivity.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  > Ignoring flexbox for a second Not ignoring Flexbox, this is the crux of my problem with web development. There are 8,476 different frameworks, transpilers, toolkits, and what have you that all kinda-sorta do the same things. When first approaching this world you get confronted with alphabet soups of packages all combined to "make front end development sane". Everybody seems to have their own soup, though, and many claim that theirs is the way to do development. The flexibility that so many Node-style devs love leads directly to this impenetrability and fragility.
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > Not ignoring Flexbox, this is the crux of my problem with web development. There are 8,476 different frameworks, transpilers, toolkits, and what have you that all kinda-sorta do the same things If they do the same thing, pick one and dig in. I really don't get this argument - walking down the cereal aisle will not generate this amount of antipathy despite the amount of choice available; why on earth should development different? The optimal taste, texture and crunchiness is different for everyone, you can even default to the traditional oats or corn flakes if the newfangled cereals are too brightly-colored or too confusing for you[1]. I love the JS ecosystem and its Cambrian explosion - lots of ideas (good and bad) being tried out by other people[2] and the good ideas tend to be adopted by the more mainstream projects. 1. This is obviously a thinly veiled allusion 2. This is important - don't be the guinea pig and don't jump onto the latest and greatest.
aclsid 10y ago
The difference between what you are doing and what desktop UI has always enjoyed is a component system that works flawlessly. The Web Components specification is a good step forward in this regard, but as many people have pointer out, try to do something trivial like a modal wizard in Java/.NET and try the same thing on the web side.

anodari 10y ago

I think we could divide in two types of interfaces: for data entry and for graphics/complex. For data entry, html/css is extremely easy, but for complex specialized interfaces it could be more dificult.

totalcrepe 10y ago

But none of your examples are as cross system portable and "native/normal feel" as writing an app that only works in chrome/chromium. For the decades leading up to this stage cross system GUIs with a few simple library dependencies have been an unachieved "easy" task. Web remains as frustrating as ever because now we need it to work on all non portable browsers even on platforms that supports better ones. Then we want new features at an alarming pace that GTK could never normalize across *nixes. Using the only non-browser that I think sort of got cross system portability working as an example.. I don't think things functioned reliably against the weird m$, Ibm and gcj Java implementations. But since they aren't really GUIs themselves with bookmarks, and familiar menus, no one gets upset when you tell them to replace an odd Java implementation before running a Java program.

douche 10y ago
Why is native/normal feel the end-all-be-all of UI systems? I've never quite understood why this is so desirable. Or why the answer seems to be using a shoddy UI system stuffed in a browser frame.
- nurettin 10y ago
  I know a great coder who refuses to start personal projects because he can't find UI libraries which are: 1. Cross-platform across mac-win-linux-android-ios 2. Built for a compiled language such as pascal or C++ 3. Built to use native controls 4. Integrated to registered libraries through an interface like activex 5. Accompanied by a UI builder with design-time and runtime states and component builders. 6. Easily integrated to embedded and server-side SQL. Sometimes we impose too many constraints on ourselves and never actually start anything. Fear of success?
  - vram22 10y ago
    Good point. And actually, Delphi matches many of those bullet points. Expensive, though. (The promo of the free Delphi 10.1 Berlin Starter version just got over on Aug 9. First time in a a while, maybe, since Turbo Delphi Explorer.)

witty_username 10y ago

Qt is easy with Qt Designer and looks professional.

hellofunk 10y ago
I wouldn't call Qt Designer "easy" in any sense of the word, but possibly that is because I have found how good that sort of tool can be, and it is called Interface Builder (Xcode), which isn't perfect, but should be what Designer strives for.
- witty_username 10y ago
  It was easy for me to arrange widgets in a layout and connect signals and slots.

bigato 10y ago

> But Tcl/Tk is the most easiest GUI toolkit ever, too bad the resulting UI does not look professional. ttk does