3 ms·
Agreed on the crappiness of the web stack for this application. But WPF isn't necessarily better. Case in point: a Bible study program where one's choice of vid
by mwcampbell 12y ago
Agreed on the crappiness of the web stack for this application. But WPF isn't necessarily better. Case in point: a Bible study program where one's choice of video card actually mattered, at least in 2009 (see http://community.logos.com/forums/t/6200.aspx http://community.logos.com/forums/t/6200.aspx). BTW, I only know about that specific example because my brother is a preacher.
I think a better foundation for a cross-platform editor/IDE would be SWT, the Standard Widget Toolkit from Eclipse, perhaps ported to .NET.
- Alphasite_ 12y agoOr even IntelliJs skin and components for Swing.
- mwcampbell 12y agoDo the IntelliJ skin and components have any advantages over Eclipse's SWT in your opinion? My understanding is that Swing is much heavier. In fact, SWT was originally designed for Java 2 Micro Edition [1]. [1]: http://flylib.com/books/en/2.120.1.42/1/ http://flylib.com/books/en/2.120.1.42/1/
- billrobertson42 12y agoSwing was crap at the time, but it got significantly better.
- Shog9 12y agoAnd this is why it's web stack: there are no better alternatives. For decades of trying, this is the best we've managed to do for cross-platform UIs. It ain't great, but it soundly beats the alternatives.
- mwcampbell 12y agoI think that SWT proves that for some criteria, particularly nativeness and accessibility, it is possible to do better than the web stack while covering all major desktop platforms.