[Mono-list] layout managers
01 Jul 2002 14:18:29 +0200
On Mon, 2002-07-01 at 08:40, Jon Gilkison wrote:
> But not many Windows programmers using .NET for desktop apps (the bulk
> of .net's initial developers, after the server and enterprise folks)
> would believe that Sun's design is all that great in comparison to their
> current modus operandi. But that's the subject for an op-ed piece best
> left somewhere else.
Yet you have to see that .NET is also for non-windows developers on
> The point being, plan for localization. If accessibility is a concern,
> then make sure you adhere to the established interface guidelines of the
> OS(es) you are targeting, and they "should" take care of the rest. =20
Localization is not everything. Quiet opposite, I guess localization is
the minor point. The major point is bad adaptivity. I know a lot of
people who have different monitor resolutions and/or different font
sizes. I would like to switch windows to a higher resolution but then
the standard fonts become unreadable. Yet I cannot switch to a larger
font size because programs do not support other font sizes (or even
It's even worse than that. Some programs are not resizable at all!
Some of you might have experienced windows crashes and have rebooted to
the minimum resolution (640x480 usually). Unfortunatly in some windows
versions (e.g. 98), the resolution setup program is not resizable and in
its standard size it is higher than 480 pixel.
The problem is, if these things are not tightly integrated into the
widget set, you have the possibility of slow work-arounds or of using
Any way - program development does not become easier, if this is not
integrated. However it's too late now. It should only be understood that
these features are important and that some imaginative future
cross-platform development architecture is better off integrating them
into the standard api.
I am not saying that you must use these features, not at all - one
problem of java is that it is very difficult to use fixed-size geometry.
But it should be ->easily<- possible to use them.
> If all else fails, roll your own!
Roll your own what? Operating system?
That's not the point and not the solution. It's only a workaround.
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----