2 ms·

I would say that the distinction between TUI and GUI - outside "how would I use this tool remotely" - is mainly one for the developer. Take ImGui (https://githu

I would say that the distinction between TUI and GUI - outside "how would I use this tool remotely" - is mainly one for the developer. Take ImGui (https://github.com/ocornut/imgui https://github.com/ocornut/imgui, an immediate mode GUI library) for example - the examples are much closer to TUI interfaces than a Swift UI app - the only difference between that an a terminal UI would be that the lines are thinner and that text has non-uniform spacing. Does that make ImGui a TUI? Or make TUIs a GUI? Why are those thin visual lines graphical, if the slightly thicker visual lines drawn by your graphical terminal emulator with support arbitrary color precision and inline image rendition is not? Maybe the issue is that it there is a terminal emulator to visualize the representation. But if an application that is not graphically heavy and needs an intermediary is a TUI, does that make most utility electron apps TUIs? The difference between a TUI and a GUI is just an implementation detail, and these do not matter in the distinction of desktop app or not. Heck, some modern terminal UIs are more graphically appealing than some GUI apps. And remember, the question was about desktop, not GUI specifically. > The established definition of desktop, mobile, gui, tui and commandline is pretty consistent for some decades now I would say. Considering that all good desktop apps were TUI apps 3 decades ago, that mobile apps are in their modern form has basically only existed for 1.5 decades, and that running mobile apps as desktop apps and the general merge between the disciplines is only a few years old at most, I'd say that this statement doesn't quite hold.

slightwinder 3y ago
> Take ImGui (https://github.com/ocornut/imgui https://github.com/ocornut/imgui, an immediate mode GUI library) for example - the examples are much closer to TUI interfaces than a Swift UI app - the only difference between that an a terminal UI would be that the lines are thinner and that text has non-uniform spacing. What I see there is a spatial interface with complex layout, z-axis and graphical elements. A bit hard to replicate on a normal terminal. > Does that make ImGui a TUI? TUI and GUI are not defined by the actual complexity of a real application, but the environment which gives them theoretical abilities. With a GUI, you can have pixel-perfect control over every element. With a TUI, you are normally limited to character-level of control. Of course can you also use pixels without a desktop, but you would still leave the terminal-environment and enter the framebuffer for this or something similar. Though, to be fair, at this point it indeed can become a bit fuzzy.
- arghwhat 3y ago
  > With a GUI, you can have pixel-perfect control over every element. With a TUI, you are normally limited to character-level of control. So when I have pixel-perfect content render in a terminal emulator through Sixel graphics, and have inconsistent font rendition and problematic CSS box wrapping in a Web or Electron app, does that make the former GUI and the latter TUI? ;) > TUI and GUI are not defined by the actual complexity of a real application, but the environment which gives them theoretical abilities. And indeed, this gets to my point. The difference between a GUI and a TUI framework is more akin of the difference between, say, SwiftUI and WinForms, than something presenting a different mental model or experience for users. There are aesthetic differences, but there are just as stark differences between Win32, Aero, Metro and Sun Valley Windows GUI styles. Sure, modern GUI applications can do more, but no user cares that Outlook could have had pressure-sensitive, angle-dependent Wacom tablet tool integration, and no so user would care that a TUI email client can't.

slightwinder 3y ago

> Take ImGui (https://github.com/ocornut/imgui https://github.com/ocornut/imgui, an immediate mode GUI library) for example - the examples are much closer to TUI interfaces than a Swift UI app - the only difference between that an a terminal UI would be that the lines are thinner and that text has non-uniform spacing. What I see there is a spatial interface with complex layout, z-axis and graphical elements. A bit hard to replicate on a normal terminal. > Does that make ImGui a TUI? TUI and GUI are not defined by the actual complexity of a real application, but the environment which gives them theoretical abilities. With a GUI, you can have pixel-perfect control over every element. With a TUI, you are normally limited to character-level of control. Of course can you also use pixels without a desktop, but you would still leave the terminal-environment and enter the framebuffer for this or something similar. Though, to be fair, at this point it indeed can become a bit fuzzy.

arghwhat 3y ago
> With a GUI, you can have pixel-perfect control over every element. With a TUI, you are normally limited to character-level of control. So when I have pixel-perfect content render in a terminal emulator through Sixel graphics, and have inconsistent font rendition and problematic CSS box wrapping in a Web or Electron app, does that make the former GUI and the latter TUI? ;) > TUI and GUI are not defined by the actual complexity of a real application, but the environment which gives them theoretical abilities. And indeed, this gets to my point. The difference between a GUI and a TUI framework is more akin of the difference between, say, SwiftUI and WinForms, than something presenting a different mental model or experience for users. There are aesthetic differences, but there are just as stark differences between Win32, Aero, Metro and Sun Valley Windows GUI styles. Sure, modern GUI applications can do more, but no user cares that Outlook could have had pressure-sensitive, angle-dependent Wacom tablet tool integration, and no so user would care that a TUI email client can't.