| |||||||||||||
XDC2012: Programming languages for X application developmentXDC2012: Programming languages for X application developmentPosted Oct 4, 2012 18:13 UTC (Thu) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630)In reply to: XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development by intgr Parent article: XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development
Tk, in its default configuration, does look old, but I don't think ugly. I don't think gitk's interface is any uglier than those of my other desktop tools like Firefox, claws-mail, etc. And the whole point of Tcl/Tk is that it's easy to build up "megawidgets" from simpler widgets so you don't *need* a multicolumn list box. Once the code is written to make a megawidget, you just use it. If you don't like writing your own widget code, there are plenty of libraries (eg, BWidget) that have all the widgets you'd ever need.
(Log in to post comments)
XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development Posted Oct 4, 2012 18:24 UTC (Thu) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
Old = Ugly here. Tk's look (motif ?) is older than me, so it feels totally alien to me.
XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development Posted Oct 4, 2012 22:25 UTC (Thu) by njwhite (subscriber, #51848) [Link]
> Tk's look (motif ?) is older than me, so it feels totally alien to me
I really feel like we must be talking past each other somehow. Here are screenshots from a couple of little GUI programs I wrote recently, with Debian's Tk 8.5, doing nothing fancy whatsoever:
Motif may well be older than me too; I really don't think Tk looks particularly dated. Tk 8.4 did, 'cos it didn't use proportional fonts (at least by default), but Tk 8.5 looks as modern as anything else to me. And as I mentioned above, it's really nice to code in.
XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development Posted Oct 4, 2012 22:53 UTC (Thu) by juliank (subscriber, #45896) [Link]
It looks a bit better than previously (it was darker previously IIRC), I'd say it looks OK. But it is easily recognizable as a non-native toolkit in a desktop, whereas all other major toolkits (GTK+, Qt, and wxWidgets if you like) are not (as they render using either GTK+ or Qt). What it needs are stuff like rounded corners and some more visual hints, like coloring of active tabs.
I want my graphical applications to look great, not OK. They a sort of a distraction from the main part of the screen content, the terminal. That's why I don't use stuff like Tk, Xfce, or Enlightenment. They're all ugly and inconsistent compared to the wonderful GNOME 3 desktop (GNOME 3 has other important problems though, like crashes on user switch).
XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development Posted Oct 5, 2012 13:28 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link] They're all ugly and inconsistent compared to the wonderful GNOME 3 desktop Ah, I see. You're being ironic. Seriously... "ugly" is absolutely in the eye of the beholder and I find Tk apps no more ugly than Qt or gtk+ ones.
XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development Posted Oct 5, 2012 21:51 UTC (Fri) by sramkrishna (guest, #72628) [Link]
You should file a bug on that.
Tk look Posted Oct 5, 2012 12:32 UTC (Fri) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Ugh. Ugliness is in the eye in the beholder, definitely. Why do people think that white backgrounds are only for text documents?Also, there are varying degrees of ugliness. I have deduced through various experiences that my aesthetic sense is a bit advanced for a developer, but completely backwards for regular people. The screenshots you posted are (no offense meant) definitely in developer-only land: function over form.
Tk look Posted Oct 5, 2012 12:38 UTC (Fri) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link] Why do people think that white backgrounds are only for text documents?Because large expanses of white background on emitted-light display are eye-stabby in much the same way that a thinly-overcast sky is.
Tk look Posted Oct 6, 2012 9:16 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I disagree. That might have been the case ages ago with CRTs, but TFTs have made it tolerable and even desirable. My browser window fills the whole screen and the web pages in it are usually large expanses of white, including right now LWN.net. It is not uncomfortable at all, and making the thin control stripes (menu and buttons) a little bit darker does not change the overall picture.In fact, darker backgrounds on web pages decrease readability. I find white text on a dark background particularly nasty: after reading such a page I see dark spots everywhere for a minute or so. I have configured my terminal windows to be black on white too and now live in a bright, sunny world.
Tk look Posted Oct 10, 2012 15:58 UTC (Wed) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link] TFTs have made it tolerable and even desirableNope. Still intolerable and undesirable here. TFTs have made it not quite as bad as before, but I still prefer light text on a dark background 90% of the time. How anyone can work with a dark on light terminal is beyond me. But hey, everyone's personal preferences are different.
Tk look Posted Oct 6, 2012 7:13 UTC (Sat) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]
> Why do people think that white backgrounds are only for text documents?
Everyone knows text documents should be chunky white text on a blue background. Those white backgrounds just give you screen burn.
Tk look Posted Oct 6, 2012 10:48 UTC (Sat) by wazoox (subscriber, #69624) [Link]
Thank you. I've always thought that the one true color for term windows is the traditional IRIX winterm appearance ( example here: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/system/utilities... )
XDC2012: Programming languages for X application development Posted Oct 6, 2012 6:55 UTC (Sat) by dirtyepic (subscriber, #30178) [Link]
Sorry, that screams Windows 98 to me. It's just boxy and generic with no visual variety. Though maybe it looks better when framed inside the standard window decorations.
|
|||||||||||||
