discuss-gnustep
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: NSToolbar (was Re: Portability/Compatability betweenGNUstep<---> Coc


From: Jeff Teunissen
Subject: Re: NSToolbar (was Re: Portability/Compatability betweenGNUstep<---> Cocoa...)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 09:21:03 -0500

Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:

> address@hidden
> wrote on 14.01.2004 05:52:07:
> 
> > Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:

[snip]

> > > most of the time I read something from you on the list it is a rant
> > > against any new feature to GNUstep that is not covered by the
> > > OpenStep specs.
> >
> > It appears to me that you are somewhat unfamiliar with the concept of
> > evolution vs. revolution.
> >
> > Why do I feel the need to say this stuff? In part, it's because it
> > saves me from having to start a fork; in part, it's because being a
> > clone of Cocoa (or of OPENSTEP, for that matter) is a sure-fire path
> > to perpetual obsolescence for GNUstep.
> 
> O.k. I see you are asserting some things. But can you also substantiate?

Of course I can.

Remember OS/2? Even though lots of people used it, even though IBM created a
very good Win16 (and later a Win32) portability library, vendors generally
didn't port their Windows software. There were a few ports, but not nearly
enough.

How many vendors have ported their Windows software to Linux? At last count,
one, even though there exists a mostly-complete Win32 API (libwine) for
Linux/BSD on x86...one which can even use DLLs. MFC even works, and there is
ONE vendor.

Lessee, what else is there...oh yeah, how about the fact that GNUstep can
never possibly implement the functionality that Mac OS X developers expect?
It's an impossible task. Apple releases a new OS X every 18 months, and they
have teams of people working full-time on new stuff. GNUstep hasn't even
fully caught up to Rhapsody, much less OS X 10.1. Further, their new stuff
is nearly all patented out the wazoo, so even if people WANTED to do it,
they couldn't.

[snip]

> > But mostly, it's because what I'm saying is true.
> 
> Oh, I understand! You are the holder of the ultimative and universal
> truth! I bow low before you!

Nice hyperbole. Are you going to be serious, or should I just tell you to
fuck off and stop discussing it with you?

[snip]

> > Please keep religious arguments out of this -- I have no religion,
> > least of all a pathetic Cult of NeXT (a subset of the equally-pathetic
> > Cult of Steve). My opinions -- all of them -- on user interface design
> > (graphical and otherwise) have been reached through research and
> > reason, not faith.
> 
> Who did the research? You? Or were it NeXT and Apple? Which company was
> it to publish "Human Interface Guidelines" for their OS first?

All of the above, plus many other HCI researchers.

Apple were the first company to publish human-computer interface guidelines
for a graphical operating system (and have repeatedly broken them since NeXT
took over Apple). NeXT followed up, having improved on the Mac's UI in
certain spaces (that is, big screens -- the original Mac UI remains
altogether superior for small screens). In the same time-frame, Microsoft
kinda threw together a GUI by throwing elements at a wall and seeing what
stuck, researchers at IBM designed the Presentation Manager system, Sun
developed Open Windows, and the UNIX vendors co-developed Motif.

The original NeXT GUI was good, but had lots of rough edges that weren't
fully hammered out until the third major version. And unlike most systems
(including the Mac), NeXT's later designs got more simple instead of more
complex.

> Btw. somebody already pointed out that toolbars have been part of the
> NeXT Interface ever since (even NSToolbar as private class)

Both of them (two people -- Phillippe Robert, and Greg Casamento -- not one)
were wrong, and as I said earlier, I don't have a problem with toolbars
being in GNUstep.

To expand on that first sentence:

NeXTstep did not have toolbars.
OPENSTEP did not have toolbars.
In the OPENSTEP days, NeXT had a private framework that implemented a class
called NSToolbar, which was nothing like the class that we know of today as
NSToolBar. NSToolbar provided Mail v4 and Project Builder with their
toolbar-like icon lists, which were: 1. not user-configurable, and 2. just
another view, which is the reasonable way to implement them in a NeXTish UI.

> > Why have I not "jumped on the bandwagon"? Because the alternatives
> > that have been presented are more ugly, less consistent, and less
> > efficient.
> 
> Again, which OS is known to have the most consistent user interface?
> Windows? Unix with CDE, KDE or GNOME, possibly Motif?

NeXT has been consistently regarded by researchers as the most consistent
GUI computer user interface in history. Macintosh System 6.x comes in
second, followed by System 7.x. Few others even come close. The NeXT
interface was so good that when it came to design Chicago, Microsoft ripped
NeXT off shamelessly, making it the first (and possibly last) time that the
Mac wasn't their primary inspiration.

> You purpot a lot but I miss the prove.

That's "proof", and I have given it before, the last time this was
discussed. Do try to keep up.

-- 
| Jeff Teunissen  -=-  Pres., Dusk To Dawn Computing  -=-  deek @ d2dc.net
| GPG: 1024D/9840105A   7102 808A 7733 C2F3 097B  161B 9222 DAB8 9840 105A
| Core developer, The QuakeForge Project        http://www.quakeforge.net/
| Specializing in Debian GNU/Linux              http://www.d2dc.net/~deek/




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]