Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

XMLUI

blog.jonudell.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 345 posts

Re: XMLUI

#61

Post by djha-skin »

efitz wrote: post #49
yoz-y wrote: post #8

As a programmer I found that all no-or-less-code approaches break up sooner than one would expect. Eventually I chosen to always use the programming language itself for data fetching, looping and leave the templating (lit html in my case) to just passing in the data structures.

All abstractions break down. The more the e difference in in expressivity or complexity between the abstraction and whatever it abstracts, the faster it breaks down.

I don't agree. Rather than breaking down, abstractions in UI have stabilized and centralized. Everyone uses React.

Re: XMLUI

#62

Post by cbsmith »

franze wrote: post #55

Those who do not understand (or remember) XUL are forced to reinvent it. see https://www-archive.mozilla.org/xpfe/xui.html

Pretty sure Jon Udell remembers XUL.

Re: XMLUI

#63

Post by djha-skin »

criddell wrote: post #16
yoz-y wrote: post #8

As a programmer I found that all no-or-less-code approaches break up sooner than one would expect. Eventually I chosen to always use the programming language itself for data fetching, looping and leave the templating (lit html in my case) to just passing in the data structures.

I've also seen examples that are pushed way further than I thought possible. I'm thinking about some of the things people do in Excel.

In 2010 I was working for a student computer support shop. We had web developers building our own ticketing system. In those days, I was told that everything in the UI was just tables. It was the only way they could get enough control on UI elements before div tags became widely spread.

Re: XMLUI

#64

Post by mnafees »

I wrote Qt C++ for 7 years as an open source contributor to KDE. This reminds me of QtWidgets’ .ui files—custom XML files following a specific schema. Later, Qt introduced QML, which I personally found unintuitive, and over time I lost interest in Qt altogether. That said, I still think XML for UI definitions makes sense, and it’s understandable that some larger environments continue to use it.

Re: XMLUI

#65

Post by righthand »

fxtentacle wrote: post #48

In my opinion, the best GUI approach is still JUCE. Every UI element is a C++ class with a drawing function. You create new UI elements by composing other elements to create another C++ class, for which the editor will auto-generate the source code. For buttons, you have a large if...else... area in the drawing function to handle different states like hover, pressed, active, disabled, etc. Behind the scenes, a thin d…

I haven’t tried JUCE yet but I miss the days where everything was a C++ class in Qt. Everyone clamours for a templating language but:

class MyButton extends QObject {

…

$button = new Button();

$button->color = “blue”;

$icon = new Svg();

$layout = new QtHorizontal();

$layout->push($icon, $button);

$this->layout = $layout;

…

}

This to me is much more readable than fiddling with stacked, embedded, and nested mustache/XML syntax split across files. Templating languages only really guarantee one unique thing about understanding the code: “Is my module embedded under the correct parent module?”

Re: XMLUI

#66

Post by greatgib »

spenrose wrote: post #44
greatgib wrote: post #42

The author is probably too young to have experienced the crap of XML based interface. Like XUL and co. But with another stack, I miss how good and easy it was to do great interfaces with Delphi in the good old time!

"Since 1995 nearly all of my professional work has been enabled by, and published on, the web." https://jonudell.net

I stand corrected: The Microsoft era (2007-2014) In Jan 2007 I joined Microsoft as an evangelist.

Exactly at the time that Microsoft pushed for the XAML crap... So indeed not reinvented the wheel, just not having giving it up despite the complete failure of it.

Re: XMLUI

#70

Post by dxroshan »

api wrote: post #37

There was so much work done in the 80s and 90s on RAD — rapid application development — that was all thrown in the trash when the web hit. 20+ years later we’ve managed to finally build up the right combination of hacks to make the web a passable application platform but it still feels like you’re forcing it. Because you are. The web was not designed to be an app platform and it shows. Still.

Great point!
Post reply on HN