Re: GNUstep on MS Windows

[Stefan Urbanek]

On 2003-12-03 20:00:12 +0100 Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf 
<Lars.Sonchocky-Helldorf@bbdo-interone.de> wrote:

> On 03.12.2003 18:46:32 Stefan Urbanek wrote:
> > This is valid point. Problem is not non-interest in Windows port, but in 
> > knowledge of Windows API.
>
> Same here.
>
> > So, to sum up the answers for GNUstep on Windows question:
> > - GNUstep can work on Windows
> > - it is unstable
> > - PB does not work
> > - D&D does not work
> > - (what else is missing?)
>
> A lot of people I talked to miss the Windows native look and feel. Currently 
> GNUstep draws it's own Widgets.

I see no problem here.

> A better way here would be what I call the SWT approach: SWT, the Standard 
> Widget Toolkit for Java is part of the Eclipse Project. What makes it 
> outstanding is the use of native widget functionality in contrast to the 
> SWING approach which - like GNUstep - draws the widgets by itself. More 
> Information: 
> http://www.eclipse.org/articles/Article-SWT-Design-1/SWT-Design-1.html
> The pro of the SWT approach is that you get the native look and feel of the 
> platform you are on instantly (even themes installed by the user). The cons 
> are the necessary stubs that have to be done for each platform you want to 
> support. But I think if GNUstep wants to be a serious cross platform 
> application development framework it has to go this way. Windows Users (and 
> professional Developers) are not that tolerant to the toolkit mixture that is 
> common practice under UNIX.

It is not possible to achieve "one size fits all GUI" with any kind of toolkit. 
"Feel" is one thing that it is not currently portable. Look may be.

Eventhough, from personal experience I can say, that professionals that focus on the 
problem they want to solve, do not care much about consistent feel between application 
and environment if it is not going to interact much with the environment. In other words, 
if you have a "solution", then more important is consistency [of look and feel] 
within the solution than of consistency between the solution and the environment.

From this, I can see a Workspace manager as "entry point" to the GNUstep 
environment+look+feel, where one launches other apps. It is much easier to explain that:

"here you have this application/environment [GNUstep], where you have those tools 
[gnustep apps] and you can use them like that [launch from Workspace manager]"

than to explain:

"well, this one exe file/app behaves and looks differently, because it uses GNUstep 
(What is that and why is that different?), you cannot launch it like this, only like 
that, and you have to launch this and that tool before you want to use this, and you have 
to set this variable to .... etc."

How I see GNUstep+GUI on windows is some GNUstep-gui.exe which is something 
ilke GNUstep session daemon consisting of gpbs+gdnc+gworkspace from which one 
can launch GNUstep apps.

On the other hand, if there is a way for "portable feel", then .. why not, but 
I do not think it is the highest priority.

> > Is it feasible to use GNUstep on Windows? And ... can I count on GNUstep
> or
> > should I rather look for some other development environment?
>
> Do you really want to do C++? And learn another API? Oh wait, just go for it!
> ...then you can come back after a while with your newly gained knowlegde and 
> help the GNUstep Windows port... ;-)

Why C++? There are plenty of Smalltalks out there that can produce native 
Windows binaries, even compiled to native machine code. Some of smalltalks are 
cross-platform. And there is also that not-very-beloved Java, which is not 
perfect, but serves it's purpose and just works well.

I do not want to use C++, neither Java if I do not have to.

Stefan Urbanek
--
http://stefan.agentfarms.net

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you 
win.
- Mahatma Gandhi