Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Sep 2008 14:03 UTC, submitted by John Mills
When Google released its Chrome web browser not too long ago, it of course emphasised that the browser was an open source product. The browser contains 24 parts originating from 3rd parties, and to some surprise, one of those parts comes from one of Google's biggest enemies - Microsoft.
Thread beginning with comment 330469
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: They should have used Qt
by -pekr- on Tue 16th Sep 2008 19:41
in reply to "RE[7]: They should have used Qt"
Member since:2006-03-28
I think that your post is nearly not worth replying to. I occupy respected IT possition and don't need to be taught where should I work and what should I say. So please stop talking crap and start to actually use some arguments.
Who said cross platform toolkit has to look ugly? What if something like that looks quite cool? And is consistent too? Then what?
You sound like OS fanatic fanboy, who thinks that "native" is always consistent. Well then, what about Office 2007 and Microsoft with tonnes of their UI experts?
RE[8]: They should have used Qt
by david87656 on Wed 17th Sep 2008 05:37
in reply to "RE[7]: They should have used Qt"
Member since:2008-09-03
You should have worked at Sun's PR. "Java Swing is ugly, but it's equally ugly on all platforms. Give us credit for consistency!"
Who says Swing is ugly? That might have been true three or four years ago but Swing produces attractive GUI's now. Due to the "lowest common denominator" syndrom it can be difficult to program, especially the non-thread-safe aspect, but I find the produced GUI appealing.
Member since:
2005-07-07
You should have worked at Sun's PR. "Java Swing is ugly, but it's equally ugly on all platforms. Give us credit for consistency!"