Imagine: A GUI standard.

[noridotjabi]

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard? Think about it
for a second. You may say, well evey systems API for GUIs is differnt,
but do take into acound: every operating system requires differnt
compilations and often totally differnt compiler code. For instance
gcc on windows in not the same code as gcc on linux/unix but it
produces the same programs when you use it to compile. Yes you can
take something like:

#include <stdio.h>

int main(void) {
printf("Hello, world!\n");
return 0;
}

And compile it on Mac OS X, Windows XP, Debian Linux, freeBSD, etc.
Each time(especially on the unposix driven OS's) differnt machine code
is generated. So why can't you take:

#include <stdgio.h>

int main(void) {
stdwin s_window;

s_window = makenewwin(WIND OW_DIALOG);
win_printf(s_wi ndow, "Hello, World!");
wait(5);
closewin(s_wind ow);

return 0;
}

All of the functions above are imagineary of course but why havn't they
been created? Graphical User Interfaces have existed scince the Mid
80's (or maybe earlier correct me if I am wrong) yet there is still no
C standard about them. Yes more coding would be required on SEVERAL
systems, but it doesn't even apear as though there has been much effort
to make a standered for GUI. Porting GUI programs from linux to
windows, or back, is hell. Sure there are things that exist for
windows and linux for example GTK, but, there are differances, and this
is not "standard".
How long is it going to take before someone says "Okay, you know what,
text based user interfaces are not what most users use, wouldn't it be
nice to make it so that there is nice C standard based on GUIs?".
Well? Wouldn't it?
Nori

[Frederick Gotham]

no*********@gma il.com posted:

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard?

There is, kind of. There's libararies available on the internet (can't
think of any of their names) which do exactly that -- you can compile your
GUI code for Windows, Linux, Mac OS...
--

Frederick Gotham

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-06-26, Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM .com> wrote:

no*********@gma il.com posted:

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard?

There is, kind of. There's libararies available on the internet (can't
think of any of their names) which do exactly that -- you can compile your
GUI code for Windows, Linux, Mac OS...

Allegro is one. But this is OT to comp.lang.c. It's possible that it'd
be ontopic in comp.std.c.

--
Andrew Poelstra < http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog >
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
I know that area of town like the back of my head.

[John Doe]

no*********@gma il.com wrote:

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard?

<offtopic>

There are many cross platform GUI kits available, i.e. GTK++, Fox, Qt,
wxWidgets. Check out the following pages
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...4/guitool.html
http://www.atai.org/guitool/

<really offtopic>

alas, most are C++, not plain old C

</reallyofftopic>

</offtopic>

[Eric Sosman]

no*********@gma il.com wrote On 06/26/06 17:25,:

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard? [...]
There are lots of them. Enough, as the humorists like
to say, so everybody can have a standard all his own.
How long is it going to take before someone says "Okay, you know what,
text based user interfaces are not what most users use, wouldn't it be
nice to make it so that there is nice C standard based on GUIs?".

You know, graphical interfaces are not the only other
standards that exist. There are also standards for sound,
for parallelism, for networking, for operating systems, for
safety-critical systems, for navigation, for telephony, ...

What do you think would happen if all these standards
were somehow adopted as part of the C programming language?
For one thing, the C Standard would need to be printed in
multiple volumes occupying a couple meters of shelf space.
For another, the committee meetings would have such a huge
number of participants with conflicting purposes that no
revision of the standard could ever be finished. And let's
not even think about how long it would take before complete
implementations of this super-C became available (just look
at how slow C99 uptake has been). And, of course, since all
these standards would be part of C -- not part of C++ or
Java or Lisp or Python or NameYourFavorit eLanguage -- there
would be enormous inter-language compabibility problems.

There are many useful standards. Most of them should
not be part of a programming language definition.

--
Er*********@sun .com

[Keith Thompson]

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma in> writes:

On 2006-06-26, Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM .com> wrote:

no*********@gma il.com posted:

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard?

There is, kind of. There's libararies available on the internet (can't
think of any of their names) which do exactly that -- you can compile your
GUI code for Windows, Linux, Mac OS...

Allegro is one. But this is OT to comp.lang.c. It's possible that it'd
be ontopic in comp.std.c.

Only if you're suggesting a change to the C standard.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Walter Roberson]

In article <11************ **********@i40g 2000cwc.googleg roups.com>,
no*********@gma il.com <no*********@gm ail.com> wrote:

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard?
There are lots of them! Indeed, that's a big part of the problem.
So why can't you take: #include <stdgio.h> int main(void) {
stdwin s_window;
s_window = makenewwin(WIND OW_DIALOG);
win_printf(s_wi ndow, "Hello, World!");
wait(5);
closewin(s_wind ow);
return 0;
} All of the functions above are imagineary of course but why havn't they
been created? Graphical User Interfaces have existed scince the Mid
80's (or maybe earlier correct me if I am wrong) yet there is still no
C standard about them.

With good reason. Have you ever looked at the size of the documentation
for X and Motif??? Programming a graphics system takes a *lot* of work,
if it is to be sufficiently general and flexible and efficient.

Various attempts have been made to create industry standards for
graphics. OpenGL (an open standard) is a good example -- as is Microsoft's
reaction to OpenGL of creating Direct-X. You know the refrains,
"OpenGL isn't efficient enough", and "OpenGL interferes with our
ability to innovate."

Graphics standards have a lot of economic politics involved, because
there is big business in creating fast graphics cards.

If you weren't thinking as big as X or OpenGL or Direct-X, then
you must be thinking of a relatively restricted API -- but then what
do you include and what don't you?
There has been a huge effort into creating portable graphic systems
that look pretty much the same on every platform -- it is called Java.
Released by Sun, made incompatible by Microsoft until a Sun forced
the issue in court.

I'm not at all familiar with Java internals; the rumblings I've heard
are that a port of Java to a new system is a considerable effort (which
is why it isn't uncommon for OS vendors to lag several releases
behind.) How productive would you say it would be for the X3.159
committee people to get together and re-invent the Java graphics
interface? Is Microsoft likely to adopt the hypothetical standard
if it it provides substantial flexibility? Or are you thinking
only of something with less capabilities than tcl/tk ?
--
Programming is what happens while you're busy making other plans.

[goose]

no*********@gma il.com wrote:

Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard? Think about it

Some say there is; google for "Tcl/Tk".

<snipped>

goose,

[William Ahern]

On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 14:25:09 -0700, no*********@gma il.com wrote:
<snip>

How long is it going to take before someone says "Okay, you know what,
text based user interfaces are not what most users use, wouldn't it be
nice to make it so that there is nice C standard based on GUIs?". Well?
Wouldn't it?
Nori

The fatal error here is assuming that C even provisions for a
"text based user interface". Fact is, I don't believe the C describes any
kind of user interface system.

It has stream oriented I/O and even records (aka "lines"), but Plan9
managed to use stream oriented I/O for building a GUI system, so....

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-06-26, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.or g> wrote:

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@loca lhost.localdoma in> writes:

On 2006-06-26, Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM .com> wrote:

no*********@gma il.com posted:
Why isn't there a Graphical User Interface standard?

There is, kind of. There's libararies available on the internet (can't
think of any of their names) which do exactly that -- you can compile your
GUI code for Windows, Linux, Mac OS...

Allegro is one. But this is OT to comp.lang.c. It's possible that it'd
be ontopic in comp.std.c.

Only if you're suggesting a change to the C standard.

Unless he was rambling in the wrong group and his post had absolutely
nothing to do with C, I believe that he /was/ suggesting a change to
the C standard.

But that's just my interpretation of what he decided to post and where
he decided to post it.

--
Andrew Poelstra < http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog >
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
I know that area of town like the back of my head.