throwaway24242
Re:Energy
on Monday June 29, 2015 @08:53PM (#9802158)
Sry, that is a terrible argument. You are saying that we do not have to worry about nuclear waste, because we currently do not worry about other waste.
Re:Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then
on Sunday June 28, 2015 @08:13PM (#9795721)
What are examples that you can just do with a native toolkit?
Re:Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then
on Sunday June 28, 2015 @08:10PM (#9795710)
Yeah, but mostly because these applications do not work properly on mobile devices (smaller screen size, too slow, etc.) and a native (in the sense of NOT browser-based) application makes sense. However my hypothesis is just, that the LOOK does not have to fit into the OS.
Re:Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then
on Sunday June 28, 2015 @01:38PM (#9794287)
But do the users care? I do not think so. Otherwise a lot of famous websites would have native UI clients.
Re:Porting the Unity Editor to Linux: Stuff I Wish We’d Done Then
on Sunday June 28, 2015 @12:16PM (#9794010)
I think native UIs are overrated and just cause headaches for developers. E.g. take the most popular UI system: HTML/CSS/JS: users have no problem with the fact that all their favourite websites look different.
IMHO it is a better idea when the application enforces the same UI across platforms (like QT) than the platform expecting the same UI for all programs. On top of that QT does support native look&feel.