2 ms·
My argument is that it takes a few hours to make a look and feel for swing that mimics the appearance of modern electron apps. Also that Qt has plenty of stylin
by rootlocus 9y ago
My argument is that it takes a few hours to make a look and feel for swing that mimics the appearance of modern electron apps. Also that Qt has plenty of styling power. Blizzard's app is a "really bad app" just because you have a personal problem against it. It works pretty well on my PC (0.5% CPU and 130Mb ram) and I think it looks pretty nice.
- pvg 9y agoLots of people dislike the Blizzard app but if you like the Blizzard app or spent 5 hours beating a single Swing frame into looking like a web app with questionable typography, we probably have very different (subjective) notions of what a decent-looking app is. What you did say is that Qt or Swing apps looking bad cannot be further from the truth. If that were the case, you should be able to rattle off dozens of beloved, beautiful, complex Qt or Swing apps. Most cross-platform UIs (including those based on Electron) look and behaves poopily. The few that don't are the result of exceptional effort and focus.
- sk5t 9y agoIt looks like you're wasting your time arguing with a person who has not developed an appreciation for native, consistent, desktop applications.
- rootlocus 9y agoConsistent? Where? Windows changes its style with each version. Macs may be more consistent, but they're the exception and I never owned a mac. Linux is a rainbow of diversity. Unless someone puts in the extra effort to style the application, nothing will look consistent cross platform. And if you want "native, consistent, desktop applications" (for the current platform), Qt has that out of the box and Swing had a native look and feel that looked pretty consistent on Windows 7 at least.
- rootlocus 9y ago> questionable typography To be fair, I did change it a bit later to use Open Sans .