[quote]
Google "[avoids] cross platform UI toolkits because while they may offer
what superficially appears to be a quick path to native looking UI on a
variety of target platforms, once you go a bit deeper it turns out to be
a bit more problematic." Your applications end up "speaking with a
foreign accent", he adds. In addition, Goodger claims that using
something like Qt "limits what you can do to a lowest common denominator
subset of what's supported by that framework on each platform."
[/quote]
So much for Matt's theories.
Exactly which of my "theories" do you think this contradicts?
[quote]
Something similar happens with code contributions: tell your potential
developers that the project will be Linux-only, and you will alienate
90% of them.
[/quote]
The Chrome engine is multi-platform.
The UI will be built for multiple platforms.
But Google have decided to segregate those UIs into three distinct
groups, by /unnecessarily/ using three different toolkits, one for each
of the supported platforms. The effect of this will be to create three
distinct groups of contributors for those UIs, one for each platform,
such that the GNU/Linux UI will essentially be "Linux only", and thus
only attract GNU/Linux developers. This will (again, unnecessarily)
cause disparity across those three UIs, potentially delaying subsequent
releases of the GNU/Linux port, which has /already/ been unnecessarily
delayed.
Idealistically, Google's decision contradicts your position.
If your theory (quoted above) is correct, then my prediction (disparity)
will bear-out, but if Chrome remains consistent across all three
platforms, then you /and/ I will both be wrong.
/My/ position is somewhat more complex.
I recognise the /technical/ benefits of a single codebase across
platforms, but strongly oppose it for /idealogical/ reasons. In that
regard, it would seem that I /support/ disparity, but that is just an
inevitable (and IMHO acceptable) consequence of my ideological position.
As I've stated many times before, I'm disinterested in ubiquity, and by
implication, parity. Certainly I'd like to see the current /imbalance/
of Microsoft's monopoly destroyed, but ultimately the only thing I care
about is preserving GNU/Linux's integrity and Freedom. If that means
sacrificing a degree of parity, in order to discourage anything which
might threaten that /purity/, then so be it.
However, Google's decision makes no /technical/ sense whatsoever, and
clearly contradicts /your/ ideological position.
