rer

What if the data where there but not in front of their eyes. I want there to be data there.

What I don't get is: which library lets you draw stuff on the screen. GLib or GTK+?

I thought that was GLib, and GTK+ was using GLib to implement controls.

Which library does one need to build their own controls?

How would you do GUIs to make them compose, script, and show the kind of info CLIs can?

Maybe want I want is to always have access to the layer beneath (xlib, Wayland, win32). Thanks.

If you wanted to choose how to build the UI, one starting point is here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12376242

This comment says Tk is limited https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12381978 You and the GP say it's not.

Is there anything Tk can't do?

Also a question on fonts. Does Tk make it possible to use webfonts I see on websites?

Thanks for sharing this knowledge.

What can Tk not do, specifically? This thread believes Tk is as good as QT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12380456

Why is Tk getting long in the tooth? This comment believes Tk is as good as wkWindows and QT https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12380456

> it's much harder to get right than it seems

I'm not disputing this but I've yet to see a clear explanation why it's harder to get right than it seems.

I want to understand, precisely, what makes this hard.

Thanks so much for this! I know very little about Tk.

Besides antialiasing on a canvas, does antialiasing also work in text in labels, buttons, etc? Can I get in Tk all the fonts I can get in a Mac? Is Helvetica there?

Why can't I find on the web screenshots of Tk apps running on Mac OS X? Is the only way to get Tk to look good on a Mac using Tile http://tktable.sourceforge.net/tile/screenshots/macosx.html ?

From what I'm reading now there might be 4 options: Tk, wxWindows, QT, and a custom "thin layer".

There seems to be a third choice though. Writing a "thin layer", which sounds like writing one's own wxWindows or QT.

I want to know the difference between the thin layer and the existing libraries. Not in vague terms but specifically with a code example.

> I have yet to see any kind of language or run-time that lets you have it both ways.

If there were such a language I wouldn't be asking this question on HN. I have yet to see a clear answer why there is no such kind of language or run-time.

> the same code written for the DSL is not likely going to run well or even be considered for use by your other target platforms.

Why? Can be you more specific with an example?

Ok, no GTK+! (Could this be fixed with GLib?)

I didn't understand this. When you say you implement the UI as a thin layer do you mean you wrap only the few controls you need?

I see that the deeper you go, the less you can keep common. I learned a lot from your answers.

I didn't understand why the nativeness of the UI must bifurcate (fork) the codebase. In your example, can't non-modal on Mac vs modal on Windows be a config value in the cross-platform UI?

I also didn't get an answer to one of my questions. Why can't applications have low level access to create controls on their own?

I'm glad I asked this because your answer suggests this is the main problem with cross-platform UIs.

What do you think is the right thing to do? To have a common denominator kind of approach where a control works on all platforms but with fewer features, or to reimplement the control?

Do you have an example handy of a control/idiom that caused this problem?

It sounds like reimplementing (emulation) is a good thing.

> Doesn't look great, especially on the Mac, but it's fine.

I want it to look great, especially on the Mac.

No SWT.

@geraldcombs and @justinclift I didn't know any of this, thanks so much!

It sounds like GTK is eliminated too.

What's left now, QT and wxWidgets?

Thanks for this. It sounds like JUCE is eliminated.

libui is kind of neat. It wraps around GTK+. Why did libui have to do that? In other words, is GTK+ bad enough that the easiest way to use it is to wrap around it?

Why many and not all?

Emulating sounds like an extra layer one could do with out.

Is it open-source?

What I want is closer to writing my own Xojo.

How hard can it be to build a toolkit that supports a textbox on Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux? For a moment I thought you proposed a solution a thread up:

> have it translate into the correct API calls on each platform under the hood.

What if instead of writing controls for applications, the applications had low level access to create controls on their own?

> there is no such thing

Why?

Shouldn't this be a solved problem?

No CSS or Javascript. Sorry.

No Javascript, sorry.

> cross-platform UI libraries don't really let you fine-tune the UI

I want to be able to fine-tune the UI.

No HTML, JS, CSS. Electron is eliminated.

From what I'm reading in this thread, Tk is out of the question. Poor antialiasing sounds like bad looks.

> I know you haven't

I used QT before. Please don't be presumptuous.