The Future of Tk?

[Bruce S. O. Adams]

Bryan Oakley wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> >
> > In article <4fv$ECA+JyH3EwbN at jessikat.demon.co.uk>,
> > Robin Becker  <robin at jessikat.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > >I take this completely differently; least astonishment for me is if
> > >program X looks and behaves the same way no matter what keyboard, mouse
> > >and screen I'm using. As a 'user' of the program X it shouldn't matter
> > >what OS/WM is executing the code. I certainly don't want vi or emacs to
> > >be different on the mac why should I treat word or excel differently?
> >
> > I would be very surprised if Netscape on the Macintosh presented a
> > Windows-like user interface, rather than adopting the standard Macintosh
> > user interface.  Most end users don't switch between platforms much, so
> > it's more important that all the programs on their system conform to their
> > expectations, than that a particular program work the same across different
> > platforms.
>
> I would have to agree with that statement. While there are those who
> think retaining the same look and feel across platforms is necessary, I
> would wager they are in the distinct minority. That's not to invalidate
> their position, but merely to put it in context. _Most_ users of
> software want a package to look and feel like the other packages on a
> given system. I hate, for example, the artsy (-fartsy) graphic programs
> that have some weird UI instead of a more traditional UI.
>
> On the other hand, to some degree this is application-dependent rather
> than user-dependent. For example, if I were to have a requirement to
> write a air traffic control program that had to run on BeOS, MacOS, NT
> and *nix, I would think there would be significant advantages to keeping
> it 100% identical across all platforms. So, to some degree it depends on
> the application, or the targeted user base.
>
> My point being, there's a need in the world for both models. Only, the
> model where applications should adhere to native conventions is (I'm
> guessing) far and away the most commonly expected model by most users.
> Which is why I think using native windows on Tk is a win -- it meets the
> needs of the majority (though definitely not all) of the users in the
> world.
>

The two models need not be mutually exclusive.  Though I have not had the
pleasure of using SWING for JAVA myself, I believe it offers the ability
to switch look-and-feel at the touch of a button.  A configuration option that
would surely please everybody.  I would think this kind of configurability is
a good design goal.  Of course there are trade offs which are worthy of
discussion.  Would some kind soul with experience in this arena care to shed
some light?
            Regards,
                        Bruce A.