5 ms·

"High level intent" and "cross platform" just doesn't work out well. On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful: https://www.mono-project.com/archiv

"High level intent" and "cross platform" just doesn't work out well. On Windows, the native widget toolkits are just awful: https://www.mono-project.com/archived/images/1/18/Build.png https://www.mono-project.com/archived/images/1/18/Build.png https://i.stack.imgur.com/MoMKp.jpg https://i.stack.imgur.com/MoMKp.jpg https://www.devexpress.com/products/net/controls/wpf/grid/media/carousel/wpf-grid-devav-hd.png https://www.devexpress.com/products/net/controls/wpf/grid/me... Microsoft doesn't even use them anymore in many of their apps, they often use "free form UI", they also seem to use HTML/Javascript a lot. It at least has the potential to look alright, it's not forced to look like garbage by the framework. I can see that Mac users prefer the native widgets, because Apple has put a little more thought into them, but also because they're more consistent. That doesn't mean going "native" is the right way for cross-platform development. Linux doesn't have a native toolkit either, it's either GNOME/GTK (looks alright) or KDE/Qt (looks alright sometimes, awful other times) or worse.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
> Microsoft doesn't even use them anymore in many of their apps, they often use "free form UI", they also seem to use HTML/Javascript a lot. Yeah, and I and many other users fucking hate it. It's awful to work with, it's inconsistent, it looks like shit... I don't think it was a decision based on better UX, but rather that it is easier and cheaper to hire kids with no experience with anything but webshit.
akx 6y ago
Wait, so can you explain what exactly was awful about those screenshots? I'm genuinely interested since I don't see anything horribly wrong with them (aside from some dated gradients).
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Let me ask you: Can you explain what makes a mullet an awful haircut? I mean, sure, you could try to explain it, but you shouldn't have to.
  - ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
    Huh, you shouldn't, because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a mullet. It's not awful, it just probably doesn't serve the function we expect our haircuts to serve (it might, for the right kind of person, of course). The issue is this analogy absolutely doesn't fly. I sincerely hope software developers don't treat the UIs as haircuts.
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > The issue is this analogy absolutely doesn't fly. Forget the haircut. It's about taste. I'm not going to waste my time trying to "rationally" explain why something looks bad. It should be obvious to you, if it isn't, no amount of explanation will make you see it.
      - ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
        > It should be obvious to you, if it isn't, no amount of explanation will make you see it. This is exactly the kind of logic that's often held by design non-professionals and which leads to an unusable mess of a UX if applied. This is not how design works.
        gridlockd 6y ago
        I'm not talking about usability. I'm talking about looks. An ugly UI may be very functional and intuitive to use, an ugly button design may well drive the point home that it is indeed a button. That's not going to change the fact that I hate looking at it and therefore don't want to use it. It's not an either-or, you can have both, either or neither. However, if you use MFC, your app will look bad, end of story. I'm aware that some people, perhaps most programmers, aren't actually that sensitive when it comes to looks. All I can say is that it matters to me. I can't put it in words any better than I can explain why your haircut looks bad, but it does! On the other hand, if something is annoying or difficult to use, I can explain why.
        6y ago
p_l 6y ago
All the screenshots you linked look, and most importantly, work, better than pretty much every "blank canvas" application I have encountered, though I'll admit the last one is worst implemented. Worst, yet still beats the pants off Electron and the like.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > Worst, yet still beats the pants off Electron and the like. I disagree. Sure, Electron uses a lot of memory, but I have a lot of memory and I don't have a lot of tolerance for awful looking UI widgets that I have to stare at all day.
  - p_l 6y ago
    I'll take ugly if it means low, predictable latency. And even having lots of memory, I might have other uses for it than just one electron app.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

> Microsoft doesn't even use them anymore in many of their apps, they often use "free form UI", they also seem to use HTML/Javascript a lot. Yeah, and I and many other users fucking hate it. It's awful to work with, it's inconsistent, it looks like shit... I don't think it was a decision based on better UX, but rather that it is easier and cheaper to hire kids with no experience with anything but webshit.

akx 6y ago

Wait, so can you explain what exactly was awful about those screenshots? I'm genuinely interested since I don't see anything horribly wrong with them (aside from some dated gradients).

gridlockd 6y ago
Let me ask you: Can you explain what makes a mullet an awful haircut? I mean, sure, you could try to explain it, but you shouldn't have to.
- ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
  Huh, you shouldn't, because there's nothing intrinsically wrong with a mullet. It's not awful, it just probably doesn't serve the function we expect our haircuts to serve (it might, for the right kind of person, of course). The issue is this analogy absolutely doesn't fly. I sincerely hope software developers don't treat the UIs as haircuts.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > The issue is this analogy absolutely doesn't fly. Forget the haircut. It's about taste. I'm not going to waste my time trying to "rationally" explain why something looks bad. It should be obvious to you, if it isn't, no amount of explanation will make you see it.
    - ZoomZoomZoom 6y ago
      > It should be obvious to you, if it isn't, no amount of explanation will make you see it. This is exactly the kind of logic that's often held by design non-professionals and which leads to an unusable mess of a UX if applied. This is not how design works.
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        I'm not talking about usability. I'm talking about looks. An ugly UI may be very functional and intuitive to use, an ugly button design may well drive the point home that it is indeed a button. That's not going to change the fact that I hate looking at it and therefore don't want to use it. It's not an either-or, you can have both, either or neither. However, if you use MFC, your app will look bad, end of story. I'm aware that some people, perhaps most programmers, aren't actually that sensitive when it comes to looks. All I can say is that it matters to me. I can't put it in words any better than I can explain why your haircut looks bad, but it does! On the other hand, if something is annoying or difficult to use, I can explain why.
        6y ago

p_l 6y ago

All the screenshots you linked look, and most importantly, work, better than pretty much every "blank canvas" application I have encountered, though I'll admit the last one is worst implemented. Worst, yet still beats the pants off Electron and the like.

gridlockd 6y ago
> Worst, yet still beats the pants off Electron and the like. I disagree. Sure, Electron uses a lot of memory, but I have a lot of memory and I don't have a lot of tolerance for awful looking UI widgets that I have to stare at all day.
- p_l 6y ago
  I'll take ugly if it means low, predictable latency. And even having lots of memory, I might have other uses for it than just one electron app.