4 ms·
The correct answer to this is that the structure of the interface changes over time, and is influenced by the code. If you were to try to implement, say, the in
by timthelion 10y ago
The correct answer to this is that the structure of the interface changes over time, and is influenced by the code. If you were to try to implement, say, the interface to HN, then you would create a top bar with some links, a body section, and then a bottom bar with some links. But the interesting part, all the posts, couldn't be drawn in the gui editor, because, well, they are programically generated. You could create some sort of post template, that would then be able to be injected into the "body section" but really, all the interesting parts of the interface end up being dynamic, and the static parts are trivial to design in code too.
- timthelion 10y agoJust to be clear, I say that this is the "correct" answer in order to differentiate my answer from the ones that I think are not actually correct. I often think, and many agree, that the problem is with reactive interfaces supporting both mobile and desktop. Or that the problem is with GUI editors producing disgusting HTML. And indeed these are both problems. But QTDesigner, and friends don't face these problems. Your GTK app isn't going to be a reactive interface, and QT, not using html, isn't at risk of the "disgusting html" problem. And yet these designers aren't terribly popular either.
- Marazan 10y agoYup, the Adobe Flex GUI builder was lovely - right up until you got to the dyanmically generated content or custom components.
- ddlsmurf 10y agoIndeed, and our text tools are powerful in the extreme for implementing said changes