["Followup-To:" header set to comp.sys.mac.programmer.help.]
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:47:18 -0500, Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.programmer.help Paul Floyd <root@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:25:53 -0500, Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>>> Would you happen to know of any downloadable Qt apps which look and
behave
>>> like native Mac apps? I would love to see one. I think it would be
great
>>> if there were a viable cross-platform application framework, but so
far
>>> every single application I've seen which was written in one completely
>>> failed to look or act the way I expected. If there are proper apps
written
>>> in Qt then perhaps my *****sment is wrong.
>>
>> I'm perfectly happy with Google Earth and Opera, which to my knowledge
>> ae both Qt based apps.
>
> I haven't really used Opera very much, but a quick test reveals pretty
> serious problems. Tabbing between controls basically doesn't work; it
> picks a small set of controls on the web page and never moves out of
them.
> I can't tab into the address bar at all. If I start out in the tool bar
> then I can't tab to the forward/backward buttons, despite having set my
> system to allow keyboard focus on non-text controls. The toolbar also
> isn't customizable, which is not good. The preferences window is modal
for
> absolutely no good reason that I can see. The font picker used is a
total
> joke, and both it and the color picker are *also* modal for no reason.
> This is just what I saw in a few minutes, and is all stuff you will
avoid
> "for free" by using a native API.
I've never been bothered by any of the widgets or shortcuts used by
Opera. In what way is the font picker inferior to, say, Mac OS X's font
picker? It seems quite functional to me. There are very many keyboard
shortcuts, most of which I've never used. Perhaps amongst them all there
is one that does what you want. If you really want to find out, ask in
the Opera fora on their web site. I'm pretty certain that the toolbar is
customizable. It may not be easy (not entirely a bad thing, on a few
apps that I've used I've accidentally deleted toolbar actions, and then
spent a good while figuring out how to get them back). Right click on
the toolbar, and select Customize..., select the Buttons tab and you can
drag icons to tbe toolbar.
In a web browser, the things that count for me are
1. Is it stable (unlike Mosaic and Netscape 4.x).
2. Does it render pages correctly (a bit of an issue with Opera, with
web pages that only work with MS Explorer or the Mozilla family).
3. Performance (less of an issue these days as CPU/RAM capabilities
march on).
4. Cross platform. For this point, Mozilla is tops, Opera is quite good,
and everything else is just miserable.
5. Features like popup and ad blocking. Here Safari falls down badly,
and requires plugins or the like (Mozilla also requires a plugin for
flash blocking, never tried it with Opera).
> It shocks and surprises me that you would think Google Earth would make
a
> good example. I use it quite a lot, and the only reason I don't throw it
> away is because I can ignore its GUI most of the time by virtue of its
> main task being a giant 3D view of terrain, and because nothing else can
> do what it does. Even simple things like pressing control-A in a text
> field don't work. GE really makes no pretense of either looking or
> behaving like a native application.
I agree that the UI is far from fantastic, but it gets the job done. And
what alternatives are there?
> Yes, it is. It is literally about half a dozen keywords and a handful of
> syntax additions on top of C. Your C++ experience has probably colored
> your thinking in this regard. C++ is a language you can work with
> constantly for a decade and still find strange new corners. Objective-C
is
So is C!
> not that kind of language. It is C, plus a small set of extensions that
> you can literally learn in a day. If you know C already, then the
> difficult part in becoming a Cocoa programmer is not Objective-C, it is
> Cocoa.
>
> To see what I mean, check out Apple's The Objective-C Programming
> Language:
>
>
http://developer.apple.com/do***entation/Cocoa/Conceptual/ObjectiveC/index.html
I'll save the bookmark. In fact, I've saved the PDF. 142 pages, not bad.
> Perhaps now you can see why I think that Objective-C is not a real
> obstacle. If Objective-C were dominant and everybody had to learn C++ in
> order to program for some obscure platform, I could definitely see it.
But
> the reality is the opposite, and ObjC is really pretty trivial.
I'm still reserving judgement.
>> Outside of these circles, searching for "C++" on www.jobserve.com gives
>> me 3430 hits. Objective-C? 1. That's right, one hit. And the title for
>> the job offer? "C++ Mac Developer - Belgium - Cocoa Xcode OSX". (For
>> real job prospects, Java rules with 5968 hits).
>>
>> Are you going to persist in arguing that Objective-C is not obscure and
>> virtually unknown?
>
> Yes I am. If you can use personal anecdotes then so can I. I'm a Mac
OK, show me a general IT job site that has over 3000:1 Objective-C:C++
job ads. Today I was browsing Dr Dobbs, and I clicked on their job site
link. C++ 600 odd, Objective-C, zero.
> Sure, it's not as popular or well known as C, C++, or Java, but that's a
> ridiculously unfair test, like saying that asking for UNIX is not
> justified because UNIX is not popular or well known compared to Windows.
jobs != number of users
Windows may have 20x the number of users of Unix, but how many Windows
users buy software licences that run to 4 digits or more (in USD or
Euros)?
> You seem to be making the common mistake of thinking of a language as a
> critical bullet point on a resume. There's no reason it has to be that
> way. If you need somebody to do Objective-C, find someone who's good
with
> C and who knows an OO language (something with duck typing preferred,
Java
> will do, and C++ could be sufficient if you absolutely can't find
anything
> else) and have him learn the language. It simply will not take long
enough
> to justify requiring him to have already learned it elsewhere. If *you*
> need to do Objective-C, start learning. It won't take you long. Your
> investment in time will be repaid rapidly. And sure, knowing that
language
> may not help you get a job directly, but who cares? That's not how *I*
> decide whether or not to learn something.
Well, I still simply do not see the point. I forsee no prospects of
using Objective-C in a professional context. So that leaves dabbling at
home. And since I mainly dabble at home on Solaris and Mac OS X (plus a
small amount on FreeBSD, Linux and Windows), then it makes sense to me
to stick to C++ and Qt, which covers all those platforms.
> Overall, you seem to have some common misconceptions about Objective-C
and
> Cocoa. You seem to think that ObjC is a vast, complicated, C++-like
> language, which simply isn't the case; you can learn enough to get
started
> in hours. You seem to think that ObjC is an all-or-nothing prospect,
> requiring you to "****t" code to it, when the reality is that ObjC will
> talk to C with no problems, and ObjC++ lets you interface directly with
> C++ code.
I'm a bit of a perfectionist when it comes to learning programming
languages (verging on being a language lawyer). The grammar may be
straightforward, but what is difficult are the idioms.
> Sure, no matter how great Objective-C and Cocoa are, it's still going to
> be harder to write a native GUI than it will be to rely on something
like
> Qt. It's also going to be harder to translate your app into Chinese than
> it will be to just leave it in English. But if you're releasing a
special
> China edition and you expect it to actually have any success, you're
going
> to have to get it translated. Likewise, if you're going to make a Mac
> version of your software, it will pay to get it translated into the
native
> tongue.
A bientot
Paul
|
