On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 13:07, Emile van Bergen wrote:
> True. But what is the right thing if you want to control a GUI,
> preferrably at the widget level?
>
> Not X, not PNG, not HTML.
>
> We simply don't have a protocol for that yet, only big fat APIs that are
> not even APIs but "APFs", application programming frameworks (yuck).
Hmmm. I fear that if you want something universal supporting all
often-used widgets in todays GUIs and being extensible etc. etc., you
will no matter how you start arrive at a big, fat thing. Perhaps it's a
protocol and perhaps things are distributed differently between 'server'
and 'client' (X terminology), but big, fat it will stay. Or you could
keep it simple, and people would complain that it can't do X and it
can't do Y and it can't do Z. Then they would either add X, Y, and Z to
it, or they would just not use it.
No, I haven't studied many GUI toolkits, but the fact that all
widespread toolkits have a certain basic complexity seems to support my
opinion somewhat.
cheers
-- vbi
--
P.S. All information contained in the above letter is false,
for reasons of military security.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part