> Do you understand the difference between a toolkit API and a graphical widget?
I think I do. I have taken a few minutes on the Web to compare that what I had in mind is correct. What was the point of asking this question? Was it to trap me in a gotcha, or paint me as clueless, or what?
> have called me a liar and a fraud because I repeated exactly what the project docs state
Good, you realise you are taking on the claims made by Wx on paper. However, there's more to the world. To get the full picture, you have to also engage with what I have listed. The docs say one thing, the reality shown in the screenshots say another. There is a contradiction. It remains unresolved, not for lack of trying on my part.
> your two links do nothing to contradict
You are not further allowed by me to invalidate what I was writing about by simply disregarding the evidence. Engage with the points I was making. The differences in look and feel between Wx and native are plain for everyone to see and verify. So, what now? Who is right?
> Did you read anything he wrote?
Yes. Examine this:
his claim> OTOH all the standard UI elements (buttons, checkboxes, text controls, date pickers, ...) are native
my counter-evidence> Well, let's verify that… https://i.imgur.com/uHfjoUs.png No, they're not.
his deflection> Sorry, I don't know what is this supposed to prove
So instead of admitting that there is a contradiction, he just pretends to not understand it.
Also examine this:
> look good
> look good
> looks fine
> look good
I never mentioned anything about looking good, this is a distraction designed to deflect from the central point I was making. As I wrote before, the central point made by me remains completely unaddressed.
Alas, I cannot deal with those crazy-making techniques, his behaviour measured by outcome is indistinguishable from the mentally ill. With the help and advice from a friend, I came to the conclusion that it was not safe for me to respond, so I then decided not to.
