GUI libraries

[Baz]

On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 14:49:33 UTC, Chris wrote:
> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 13:30:53 UTC, Luís Marques 
> wrote:
>> On Thursday, 28 November 2013 at 12:13:42 UTC, Chris wrote:
>>> What I meant was no bindings to native widgets or other 
>>> toolkits. DWT (like SWT) uses the native widgets and needs an 
>>> interface. I was thinking of a toolkit where everything is 
>>> provided by D and done in D without any reference to native 
>>> frameworks (Cocoa etc.).
>>
>> Whatever API / bindings you use, please don't expose 
>> non-native UIs to users (drawn from scratch, either mimicking 
>> the native UI or not). They never completely integrate with 
>> the OS, subtly deviating from the native behaviour in ways 
>> that range from awkward to infuriating, and are always playing 
>> catch-up to the latest OS changes.
>>
>> For instance, take Viber for the Mac: what could be a great 
>> application (most of the complexity of a VoIP app isn't even 
>> in the UI), has awkward behaviors (e.g., the scrolling panes 
>> don't implement rubber banding, which makes them feel 
>> extremely unresponsive in OS X), badly imitated controls 
>> (e.g., the chat text box context menu, in OS X at least), etc. 
>> Features which are both complex and subtle like 
>> internationalisation also tend to break.
>>
>> The situation was already bad when the Windows, Mac and Linux 
>> interfaces were, overall, pretty similar (many of the 
>> non-optimal design decisions in apps with non-native UIs 
>> tended to appear where there were differences, such as in OS X 
>> global menus vs Windows' per window menus). With the trend 
>> toward newer and more diverse interface approaches, such as 
>> attempts to try to bring traditional computers to touch screen 
>> hardware, non-native UIs will tend to perform even worse, 
>> feeling even more alien to the end users.
>
> I don't know, but there are apps out there that do their own 
> thing rather than relying on the system. I think Chrome and 
> Opera are implemented like that. The thing is that people are 
> getting used to different UIs now, because they use e.g. an 
> iPad, an Android phone and a Windows PC (both privately and at 
> work). So maybe everything is going in the direction of common 
> UI features. Take for example multi-touch. Years ago Apple was 
> way ahead (zooming in and out, rotating pictures etc.). Now 
> most touch screen devices feature the same set of movements 
> (e.g. scroll with middle and ring finger on track pad).
>
> Also, when writing bindings to native widgets, you're always 
> playing catch-up too. Once you've got your bindings, the native 
> toolkit has new methods, features and classes. I still think it 
> would be good to have an independent GUI toolkit, like Java 
> Swing / FX as opposed to SWT.

Current Opera stuff is "everything javascript".The setting page 
is a js stuff the download page is a js stuff...And everybody 
complain about this: js ans css.
Seriously, opera is not anymore a good example.