Re: [gtk-list] Style Guide (was Re: vi bindings for text widgets)
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey cygnus com>
- To: gtk-list redhat com
- Subject: Re: [gtk-list] Style Guide (was Re: vi bindings for text widgets)
- Date: 07 Jul 1998 09:14:26 -0600
>>>>> "Steve" == Steve Hosgood <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Steve> Now, I'm not a fan of Micro$oft and their products, but I think
Steve> I have to admit that they had a sensible idea early on
Steve> (probably in Windows 2 or earlier) in that they wrote a style
The reality on Windows is that their Style Guide is insufficient to
write almost any application. To actually write something that looks
like a Windows application you must either examine many other Windows
applications, or use one of their toolkits. (IMHO, based on trying to
write a truly native Windows app using Tk -- which doesn't come with
all the Windows defaults built in.)
So looking at the MS Style Guide as an example would be terrible.
Apple's HCI book is much better, IMHO. More complete, anyway.
Steve> The same cannot be said of the X window world.
X actually has two standards: OpenLook and Motif. Both have an
associated style guide. The OpenLook book is better, but Motif seems
to have won the war.
Steve> Now, it is surely fair to claim that GTK should *not* allow
Steve> random users to redefine its scrollbar widget to work in the
Steve> 'left button'/'right button' way? Otherwise we'd all get
Steve> pretty annoyed if we ever had to use each others' workstations
Steve> for a moment occasionally.
Good point. And we'd better force one shell, one keyboard mapping
(good bye xmodmap), one text editor, and one window manager.
Oops, I'm kidding.
Steve> I extend this claim to cover the 'vi keybindings' argument. I
Steve> think GTK should have its own keybindings. For convenience they
Steve> should be chosen to be maximally convenient to the most users
Steve> at the time they are laid down. From then on, they go in the
Steve> 'style guide' as *the* GTK way to do something.
This is fine as long as the keybindings are exactly what I want.
Wait... you want something different? Too bad -- you're about to
become an Emacs user.
I'm kidding again. My point is that limiting configurability so that
other people can use my workstation is highly bogus. I work at home.
Limiting my configurability is just annoying.
I don't think there is any deep voodoo involved in making key bindings
configurable, either. Keymaps, as implemented in Emacs, have been
well-understood for a long, long time.
Steve> But changing *input* methodology in .rc files is, I argue, not
Steve> a Good Thing.
Legions of Emacs users disagree. Likewise bash users (I find it hard
to believe that people use csh, but there they are...). Etc.
Steve> Should the GTK project even start to think about putting an
Steve> informal GTK style-guide together before GTK applications get
Steve> so unlike each other in mentality that they stop being usable?
Gnome is working on a Style Guide. It isn't nearly finished.
] [Thread Prev