Perhaps that's a bit special on a game engine since most of the things it does in a sense takes over the host, i.e a full screen application that has little to do with typical OS features. But generally it still applies, because a common API can only support features that are present on all hosts.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
macOS Cross Platform GUI Toolkit with File I/O Capabilities?
- Thread starter ArtOfWarfare
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps that's a bit special on a game engine since most of the things it does in a sense takes over the host, i.e a full screen application that has little to do with typical OS features. But generally it still applies, because a common API can only support features that are present on all hosts.
Not so. I want the same great experience on all platforms - I'm going to ignore the Microsoft HIG (which no one follows anyways). The app will have mostly the same L&F on all platforms (except for the window borders).
Only on consoles. A game still has to be a well behaved Windows, Mac OSX and Linux app with a message pump and everything else otherwise it'll get flagged as not responding in the kernel manager or you'll get a crash when a context switch happens.
Kernel manager, context switch? I get that it's an application running on an operating system. The point is, it adds functionality outside of normal OS duties, whereas a generic cross platform library only can provide functionality that is shared by all hosts, thus the "lowest common denominator" remark.
Why did we debate Scala so much? In my short time with it, I was turned away by how ugly it was. I came to like functional languages just because of how crisp Racket code looks. Scala demonstrates that being functional doesn't automatically make your code neat.
I investigated Clojure for a bit. It looks better than Scala, but it adds in so many extra symbols that it turns me off the same way Perl does (to be fair, I'm not very familiar with Perl. I've glanced at code written in it and determined I don't like it).
And now I'm here to ask why this was never brought up:
Jython.
Take all the niceness of the JVM and the existing Java ecosystem of libraries, and then use Python's clean syntax instead of Java's ugliness.
I'll see how well it works out. Here's hoping using Python's syntax obliterates the NPE's that plague Java.
I investigated Clojure for a bit. It looks better than Scala, but it adds in so many extra symbols that it turns me off the same way Perl does (to be fair, I'm not very familiar with Perl. I've glanced at code written in it and determined I don't like it).
And now I'm here to ask why this was never brought up:
Jython.
Take all the niceness of the JVM and the existing Java ecosystem of libraries, and then use Python's clean syntax instead of Java's ugliness.
I'll see how well it works out. Here's hoping using Python's syntax obliterates the NPE's that plague Java.
I'm not sure what you think debating is, but me saying OMG try Scala it's a really nice and versatile language isn't much of a debate.
I'd think you know, the power of the language would be it's defining factor not how nice the syntax looks. I can think of plenty "ugly" programming languages that absolutely accel at their targeted use case compared to their pretty variants. You should use a language because it is the best tool for your problem, not because it subscribes to the finer points of language design (Or trying to reinvent LISP).
I need to create a programming language based off the principles of Feng-Shui. Compiler errors will be in the form of suggestions of what lamps you should have in your house.
The programming language doesn't make the code look neat, the programmer does. It's perfectly possible to have ugly and bulky LISP or Haskell code. Functional Languages have anti patterns to shoot yourself in the foot with just like any other language.
http://www.willamette.edu/~fruehr/haskell/evolution.html (It's a joke, but read it right to the end. It makes the point quite well)
Last edited:
Why? I've created a new UI system that's so much more powerful than any other - I'm planning on filing a few patents before letting anyone else see this.
I'd like to see it. If you made a better file manager than Finder (which everyone hates) you'll be a rich man.
I'm personally just wondering when an actual program will materialize. I go to a lot of meetups, some I'm quite cynical about talking about a program that will made vs talking about a program that has been made.