Re: Strong language about Cocoa and Qt.
Re: Strong language about Cocoa and Qt.
- Subject: Re: Strong language about Cocoa and Qt.
- From: publiclook <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 1 Jul 2003 09:29:53 -0400
On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 12:05 AM, The Amazing Llama wrote:
Actually, I was mainly confused that NIBs were not localized by
platform. All I was thinking is that they should be. You could just
have locally-defined NSWindow Cocoa classes that work like Windows
windows (uh... yeah) when running there, and Mac windows when running
there.
No extensions to NIBs would be needed, just extensions to the Package
hierarchy.
On Monday, June 30, 2003, at 08:55 PM, Jeff Harrell wrote:
Openstep Enterprise 4.2 for Windows NT used a mix of real "Windows"
controls and "Windows" windows and Openstep replacements/supplements.
For example, as I recall, the open and save panels were Windows panels
but the color and font panels were pure Openstep. Of course, that no
doubt happened because Windows either did/does not have standard panels
for some cases or the standard panels were not capable of doing
something needed. For example, Openstep Enterprise used both
Postscript and Windows (True Type ?) fonts. I am sure the Windows font
panel if it existed did not understand Postscript fonts.
Indeed, you could include different nibs for each platform. This was a
good idea because it let you organize menus, default button placement,
default button names, negative space margins, etc. according to each
platforms' conventions. This resulted in applications that fit in
better on each platform. I never had any users complain that our
Openstep applications were not good Windows applications, and we had 20
times as many Windows users as Openstep Mach or Openstep Solaris users
combined.
When I started this post, I was hoping for a discussion of the relative
development styles and advantages for Qt vs. Cocoa given that some
people seemed willing to use exotic pre-processors, forego an IDE
completely, and program in C++ in PREFERENCE to using Cocoa even on the
Mac. I am trying to understand what it is about Cocoa that makes it
less approachable (for some) than Qt. In my limited experience with
Qt, it seems very unapproachable to me.
I grant that there are aesthetic issues about programming and some
people just feel more comfortable in C++ than in more dynamic languages
like Smalltalk and Objective-C. If we sidestep the discussions about
the abomination of a language that C++ has become (I am intending humor
and being sarcastic so don't take offense. I use C++ every day), what
I don't understand is how ANYONE regardless of aesthetics could prefer
Qt over Cocoa on technical or productivity grounds.
The ONE advantage Qt has that I can see is cross-platform support, and
IMHO the cross-platform support isn't even as good as the support
Foundation and AppKit used to provide for Openstep Mach Intel, Openstep
Mach 68000, Openstep Enterprise (Windows NT), Openstep Solaris,
Openstep HP (which I never used), and now Openstep Mac OS X (a.k.a
Cocoa). The last comment in my post was not intended to start a
discussion about the merits of cross-platform frameworks. I was
advocating that Apple could trump Qt's _one_ advantage by restoring
lost capability to Cocoa.
Of course, if people can think of any other advantages of Qt over
Cocoa, I am eager to read them. I suppose I will concede that a
hypothetical purely aesthetic preference for C++ over Objective-C/Java
might count as one other plus in Qt's column.
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.