Re: Cross-Platform Windows plus Mac

In comp.sys.mac.programmer.help Steven Fisher <steve@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In article <1193193656.328993@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> I have no doubt that a sufficiently comprehensive cross-platform
framework 
>> would allow a developer to implement Mac-like behavior, and that there
are 
>> such frameworks out there. The real question is how feasible it is.
Every 
>> time I put out such a request, the responses are terrible in many ways.

>> I'm forced to conclude that either everyone who uses these frameworks
just 
>> doesn't care enough to put in the requried effort, or that the amount
of 
>> effort required to add all the expected Mac behavior is just too large.
> 
> Actually, it's a third explanation.
> 
> Most "Qt developers" are really "Windows developers." They use Qt 
> because it is easier to develop for than straight Win32. Further, if 
> they code to Qt instead of Win32, they think that one day they'll get 
> "completely free" ****ting to Mac OS X. If, you know, a Mac version is 
> ever worth the cross-compile it would take.

I'm pretty sure your explanation fits into "doesn't care enough to put in 
the required effort".

>> > The places Qt4 falls down are Mac only widgets rounded edit fields
(i.e. 
>> > the search type) and progress animations (the "spinning arrows").
I've 
>> > seen solutions to the rounded edit fields, but they were inelegant
for 
>> > developer and user alike.
>> 
>> I personally don't care very much if your app is using square text
fields 
>> instead of rounded ones.
> 
> Bad example to not care about, actually. Round text fields are for 
> entering search terms, so the appearance implies the behavior. Getting 
> this right is im****tant.

I understand that but from a personal level there are enough other cues 
that something is a search field that this particular one is not a big 
deal. For general consumption, yes, it would be a very good idea to use 
such things where appropriate.

>> Visual defects don't bother me *that* much unless 
>> it looks like the entire app has just come out of the Ugly factory like

>> Google Earth does.
> 
> I just checked: Google Earth is Qt3. According to wikipedia Qt4 was 
> released in 2005, if that helps you understand exactly how much 
> development has gone on since then.

Right, Qt4 is wonderful and great etc. So why can't anyone point me to a 
Qt app that looks and acts like a Mac app? :)

>> A minor nitpick: Xcode project files aren't XML, they're old-style 
>> OpenStep property lists. Doesn't make it any easier to edit with a text

>> editor though.
> 
> Ah, yes, I guess it's been long enough that I've forgotten what the 
> inside of the pbproj looks like. :) The scarring has begun to heal! 
> Actually, OpenStep property lists are probably slightly worse because 
> there are fewer tools to operate on them.

It's easy enough to transform them into XML plists using plutil, but this 
does add an extra step. Personally I just try to stay out of there and 
treat it like an opaque format.

-- 
Michael Ash
Rogue Amoeba Software