Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 16th Feb 2009 14:07 UTC
Editorial Late last week we ran a story on how the Google Chrome team had decided to use Gtk+ as the graphical toolkit for the Linux version of the Chrome web browser. It was a story that caused some serious debate on a variety of aspects, but in this short editorial, I want to focus on one aspect that came forward: the longing for consistency. Several people in the thread stated they were happy with Google's choice for purely selfish reasons: they use only Gtk+ applications on their GNOME desktops. Several people chimed in to say that Qt integrates nicely in a Gtk+ environment. While that may be true from a graphical point of view, that really isn't my problem with mixing toolkits. The issue goes a lot deeper than that.
E-mail Print r 2   · Read More · 93 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 349481
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: All guis the same
by abraxas on Tue 17th Feb 2009 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: All guis the same"
Member since:

Sure you could re-implement Shake in Qt today, but Qt was a lot more primitive when Shake was written. Given the tools available, I think they did the right thing going with a custom toolkit. Would they have started today I doubt they would have made the same choice, but hopefully they would have kept the same UI and design.

I already said I'm not arguing for Shake to get a new UI. This doesn't have anything to do with Shake specifically.

Also by writing, for example, a custom file selector optimized for the job, rather than relying on the default platform one, they made the app a lot easier to use. Admittedly at the cost of it taking a few minutes to fully get the hang of, but in my book that is a tiny price to pay. Sometimes it's worth writing a specialized widget to solve a specialized task. For large apps used in isolation I think harder to learn is worthwhile price to pay for easier to use.

Hmmm. I did say that it is okay to stray from the conventions when it is needed but sticking as closely to them as possible makes thing a lot easier for an end-user. I'm not so stubborn as to expect strict guidelines that never can be broken but making something different for the sake of being different is not something we need.

Reply Parent Score: 2