Can D be cute? (Qt)

Nick Sabalausky a at a.a
Sat May 8 16:57:34 PDT 2010

"Michel Fortin" <michel.fortin at> wrote in message 
news:hs4s7g$1tc4$1 at
> On 2010-05-08 18:34:02 -0400, retard <re at> said:
>> Sat, 08 May 2010 18:22:37 -0400, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>> Now that I find really surprising. On Windows, Chrome is one of the
>>> biggest offenders of "To hell with native look & feel!" that I've ever
>>> seen.
>> Chrome, on the other hand, has consistent look & feel across all
>> platforms. I guess the style comes from their own google web os system.
>> It doesn't look bad in my opinion, e.g. compared to Java and Swing.
> I was mostly talking about the non-browser-window elements, such as the 
> preferences and the about box or any other windows. I specifically ignored 
> the browser window because I understand they include a lot of custom 
> controls which doesn't necessarily represent Qt or Cocoa fairly.

Ahh, I was including the browser window. Regarding the dialog/preference 

The dialog *body* has a very native look & feel, and I think it probably 
uses the native controls.

The title/frame/border looks identical to non-accelerated Aero...but I'm on 
XP. One hell of a blatant gaffe. (And even if I were on Win7, I would 
definitely set the system to the "Classic" non-aero style anyway. There's a 
number of things I like better about it, aesthetics just being one reason).

> I wonder, what is wrong with Chrome on Windows? I mean, what is wrong that 
> is not by design but because of laziness or incompleteness?

The above. Other than that, most of my [long, long, long list of] issues 
with Chrome are by-design things. However, I don't normally distinguish 
between intentional bad designs and accidental bad designs. Bad design is 
bad design. If anything, accidental bad design is better because at least 
then there's a chance that the developer might be persuaded to fix it.

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list