Java > Scala -> new thread: GUI for D

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Adam Wilson" <flyboynw at gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:op.v5vibnca707hn8 at invictus.skynet.com...
> On Fri, 02 Dec 2011 04:33:48 -0800, a <a at a.com> wrote:
>
>> QML looks like it is (currently ?) targeted at the kind of GUI 
>> programming when you make your own custom widgets for everything. It 
>> only provides the most basic components such as rectangles, text, and 
>> images. There isn't, say, a button components - you have to make one 
>> using a Rectangle and a MouseArea. One consequence of this is that 
>> typical GUI programming is much slower. Another consequence is that you 
>> can't build GUIs that look native on multiple platforms. QML is probably 
>> great for some things, but it is not a replacement for GUI  toolkits 
>> such as Qt.
>
> This is similar in concept to how XAML in WPF/Silverlight is used to 
> construct screens, and it's not bad idea. And the fact that the UX can be 
> skinned to look nothing like the default OSUI is actually probably one of 
> the most useful things about WPF and Silverlight. Yes, it doesn't look 
> true to the OS, but you'll find that in the UI Design world, that is of 
> surprisingly little importance.

That's without a doubt my #1 complaint about desktop apps over the last 
decade: Narcissistic designers with nothing but contempt for a user's 
control over their own system.

>The most important thing to a UI designer  is that the UI looks and works 
>the same across *ALL* OS's.

That's just terrible.

>Facebook looks and works the  same regardless of whether I pull it up in 
>Chrome or Firefox, Mac or Linux.

The hell with mobile, eh? Making things look and act the same on everything 
is *terrible* UI design. Making things look and act *appropriate* for the 
given platform has alwas been and will always be the proper thing to do 
regardless of what the majority of designers decide is the trend du jour 
(ok, so that's redundant, so sue me ;) ).