61–70 of 166 posts
I don't want to shit on anyone's work but there are so many wrappers around qt, gtk and the others. I wish more people were writing guis frm scratch as opposed to wrapped the same old shit.
And why is that? Would bringing water into your house by a bucket also be a great idea? Unlikely, unless it serves another, non-obvious point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. I'm still confused though. If I create an application using Guietta, do I have to follow MIT or LGPL3 terms?
You can follow whatever terms you desire for your application as long as you fulfill the requirements of the licenses of all modules that you use. In case of MIT, it is attribution; in case of LGPL3, you need to make the source of the LGPL3 module available and you need to make it possible for the user to swap the compiled module you ship for their own version of that module.
_ is typically used to i18n strings with gettext, it seems like poor naming for a layout-related function like a spacer. Apart from that, this seems to be a wrapper on top of PySide/QT to speed up development of basic forms. I don't find it particularly attractive, I have a feeling one will have to drop into QT as soon as requirements get slightly complex. Then again, if it gets more people to approach QT and desktop…
This might not be obvious, but the name appears to be a pun in Italian on the name Giulietta (Juliet), known for cars and for the shakespearean play. It made me chuckle a bit :)
Every time I see something like this I think back to the glorious days of Borland Delphi with it's beautiful drag&drop GUI builder.
Actually I started to develop Guietta exactly because using the QT GUI builder (Qt designer) was often too time consuming for simple applications. Designer works great for GUIs with complex layouts. Having an intermediate XML representation puts a lot of distance between your code and your GUI. Sometimes this is good, other times is not. I rant a bit about this at the start of the introduction: https://guietta.readth…
Every time I see something like this I think back to the glorious days of Borland Delphi with it's beautiful drag&drop GUI builder.
* Don't have to change the program to change the UI
* Don't have to change the UI to change the program behaviour
* Easy to include in version control
It was almost akin to HTML and progressive JS.
I wish there was a GUI toolkit where you would specify what kind of interaction you need, and it builds the right GUI elements with the right workflow following best practices by itself. Sort of like what Ruby/ActiveRecord does for databases.
This might not be obvious, but the name appears to be a pun in Italian on the name Giulietta (Juliet), known for cars and for the shakespearean play. It made me chuckle a bit :)
Guietta author here. In fact I am Italian, but the name is just a diminutive of "GUI" - in Italian it sounds something like "small and cute GUI". I have a friend called Giulia and she initially thought that it was dedicated to her :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah I came to comment this. Loved the GUI builder in Delphi, it's where I cut my teeth learning to program as a teenager. Since then, I've seen .NET within Visual Studio almost get to the same quality we had with Delphi in 1995, but still way off. Now that everything's a web app wrapped in something like Electron, it should be so much easier to have tooling like this, but yet we're all still building hugely complicate…
I personally think the real reason those types of tools seem less common and popular today is that people remember for example the reputation that Visual Basic programmers got (by the way, I was one). Basically, any really convenient RAD/GUI tool has an association with beginner programmers or even users. The last thing programmers want to be identified with is a user. Programming is manipulating cryptic colorful tex…
It's more that drag and drop isn't really good for much when it comes to programming. You can build GUIs with it and some extremely simple tasks like email joruneys, but for anything else visual programming has proven to be pretty poor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Popularity shouldn't be the deciding factor for tools of any kind.
I always used to agree with this. But I've been listening to an audiobook that discusses this very topic and it seems there are good reasons for going with the most popular option in situations where you're aiming for the least downside rather than the biggest upside. One example given is that if you're booking a flight for an executive "to New York" you should pick JFK, not because it's the best option, but because…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Popularity shouldn't be the deciding factor for tools of any kind.
I always used to agree with this. But I've been listening to an audiobook that discusses this very topic and it seems there are good reasons for going with the most popular option in situations where you're aiming for the least downside rather than the biggest upside. One example given is that if you're booking a flight for an executive "to New York" you should pick JFK, not because it's the best option, but because…
You seem to be mostly concerned with CYA here and in the JFK example.
>People pick AWS or JFK not because it's the best option but because it's guaranteed by popularity to not be the worst.
But this doesn't follow from CYA. It might be the best outcome for you, because your boss doesn't blame you. But it doesn't mean it's overall the best option.
I never had a great experience with IBM tools. They're the first example that comes to mind of software which gets bought because buyers aren't users in big corporations and buyers not having a personal incentive to choose better software.
In a large company with 100.000 employees where everybody loses 1h a week due to bad UX, slow UI and server restarts, you're losing multiple millions of dollars a week to protect your position.
If Newark is on average better than JFK, you're losing your executives time to protect your position.
I'm not saying protecting yourself isn't worthwhile, but it's a bad reason to pick tools from the company's perspective.