4 ms·

But that's not the sense that "native GUI" has ever had. Widgets are only part of the picture, regardless -- a GUI is defined by the layout, behavior, interacti

by jfb 11y ago

But that's not the sense that "native GUI" has ever had. Widgets are only part of the picture, regardless -- a GUI is defined by the layout, behavior, interaction model, and widgets.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- jfb 11y ago
  No, nothing at all is native. That it's rendered in GL doesn't make it native. It uses a cross-platform events layer, which is by definition non-native.
  - laumars 11y ago
    > cross-platform != native Best not tell that to the Qt devs ;) Anyway, this argument is ridiculous because all my point was, is that this project only means "native GUI" in the sense that it's a GUI that runs without an intermediate rendering engine (ie web browser). I was just trying to defend an interesting project against the hoards of negative semantic-Nazi's. I get rather sick of the poisonous attitude some have towards other peoples hard work so felt it was only fair to offer a counter argument defending it. But I did so forgetting just how vehemently opinionated many are and now really wish I hadn't bothered because this argument has spiralled well beyond the original point. Sure, in an ideal world this project would be using vendor APIs rather than OpenGL - but this does actually work and is pretty damn cool, even if it is a bit of hack. And if we're honest, isn't hacking meant to be the point of this forums? Or is this community now just a place for intelligent people to belittle other intelligent people? Honestly, sometimes I just sigh at the number of pot-shots people make on here and how it's now become the acceptable norm. I'm sure it wasn't like this when I first joined.
    - jfb 11y ago
      I'm sorry you felt that the responses were hostile, that certainly wasn't my intent. Mood is awfully tough to get right on a bulletin board. Speaking only for myself, I feel that words are very powerful, and that it's important for us to be precise in usage. I certainly didn't mean to denigrate this project, or the talented folks behind it.
      - laumars 11y ago
        To be honest, I think a lot of my frustration is that I don't actually disagree with most of the points being raised, but I'd back myself into the position of playing devils advocate. I mean, I do think they way this submission was described as "native app GUI" is acceptable because it's also pretty clear that it's in the context of using OpenGL in place of HTML and thus it's just a concise / terse / lazy / whatever way of saying "renders natively on device" (summarising git repositories and titling them can be a deceptively hard job after all). But I can also understand why people would nitpick the semantics of that title; and had the context not been clearer (ie the project was a little more opaque about it's usage of OpenGL) then I likely wouldn't have defended it's usage.

by jfb 11y ago

But that's not the sense that "native GUI" has ever had. Widgets are only part of the picture, regardless -- a GUI is defined by the layout, behavior, interaction model, and widgets.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

jfb 11y ago
No, nothing at all is native. That it's rendered in GL doesn't make it native. It uses a cross-platform events layer, which is by definition non-native.
- laumars 11y ago
  > cross-platform != native Best not tell that to the Qt devs ;) Anyway, this argument is ridiculous because all my point was, is that this project only means "native GUI" in the sense that it's a GUI that runs without an intermediate rendering engine (ie web browser). I was just trying to defend an interesting project against the hoards of negative semantic-Nazi's. I get rather sick of the poisonous attitude some have towards other peoples hard work so felt it was only fair to offer a counter argument defending it. But I did so forgetting just how vehemently opinionated many are and now really wish I hadn't bothered because this argument has spiralled well beyond the original point. Sure, in an ideal world this project would be using vendor APIs rather than OpenGL - but this does actually work and is pretty damn cool, even if it is a bit of hack. And if we're honest, isn't hacking meant to be the point of this forums? Or is this community now just a place for intelligent people to belittle other intelligent people? Honestly, sometimes I just sigh at the number of pot-shots people make on here and how it's now become the acceptable norm. I'm sure it wasn't like this when I first joined.
  - jfb 11y ago
    I'm sorry you felt that the responses were hostile, that certainly wasn't my intent. Mood is awfully tough to get right on a bulletin board. Speaking only for myself, I feel that words are very powerful, and that it's important for us to be precise in usage. I certainly didn't mean to denigrate this project, or the talented folks behind it.
    - laumars 11y ago
      To be honest, I think a lot of my frustration is that I don't actually disagree with most of the points being raised, but I'd back myself into the position of playing devils advocate. I mean, I do think they way this submission was described as "native app GUI" is acceptable because it's also pretty clear that it's in the context of using OpenGL in place of HTML and thus it's just a concise / terse / lazy / whatever way of saying "renders natively on device" (summarising git repositories and titling them can be a deceptively hard job after all). But I can also understand why people would nitpick the semantics of that title; and had the context not been clearer (ie the project was a little more opaque about it's usage of OpenGL) then I likely wouldn't have defended it's usage.