Just as Mickey Mouse as Disney but without any of the fun.

Holy shit I love XUL

This is what I've needed to get motivated on my projects. I can lay out the entire GUI for an application and then just fill in the code. Building the interface first helps me think about hwo the application logic should work, and making the interface elements play together helps me think about usability as the first lines of code are being written.

I love this shit. I haven't been this productive since Visual Basic (which I refuse to use anymore :) ). I love, LOVE laying stuff out this way and then making the buttons do things one by one.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 11th, 2006
have you tried interface builder in cocoa? you can do something similar there.


Ive been meaning to check XUL out though for a project, seeing how much you loe it is making me more keen on the idea :)


Id be interested in further updates/opinions on it.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 12th, 2006
I saw a demo program in XUL, once, that responded like the cat's meow. XUL's been passed over in buzz by AJAX. The knock against XUL is that it doesn't work in IE.

I've always thought "So what?" The real limitation in my mind is that you are limited to the browser, and not all of this childish faux weeping about it not working in IE.
Permalink LinuxOrBust 
January 12th, 2006
its only a limitation though if you want to use it as a browser. 
For the project that I might be doing they are expected to continue to use IE for any actual browsing, we'll just set them up with a desktop icon to click on that starts up firefox and automatically loads a page, specifically designed to look as little like firefox original as possible.

Effectively the XUL/FireFox solution will just be another application that they click on to start.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 12th, 2006
I'll pretend that isn't what I've been saying all along whenever a certain someone brings up thin clients.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 12th, 2006
The putative Google Office (or whatever it was I saw), was supposed to have XUL hosted inside IE.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 12th, 2006
I saw two separate online Word clones. The selling point was your documents would be available anywhere.
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 12th, 2006
"I can lay out the entire GUI for an application and then just fill in the code."

Uh, you could do that in ASP.Net four years ago. I built two entire ASP.Net applications that way - the graphic designer guy laid out the pages, I hooked them up.

(Not comparing ASP.Net to XUL, just saying this isn't really the "gee whiz" thing about XUL...)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 12th, 2006
I think a better comparasion is XAML
Permalink Gary van der Merwe 
January 12th, 2006
Real programmers program in assembly.
Permalink A Real Programmer 
January 12th, 2006
Hack, real programmers do it in binary!
Permalink Mat Hall 
January 12th, 2006
Real programers just say Yes or No.
Permalink KayJay 
January 12th, 2006
Philo,

I didn't say it was a new concept, I just like the way it's done in XUL. I can build my app and then link it up (via XMLHttpRequest or sockets) to whatever server side technology I want.

There hasn't really been a good visual web technology like this before now. And no, ASP isn't good. :)
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
Encountered my first bug. Tab sets have a focus problem in Firefox 1.5 where you have to doubleclick the first tab you want to select after shifting the focus to any other control, or otherwise you won't be able to click on any more tabs after the first one until you click on the selected tab once more.

Yeah.

I fixed it by adding onclick="this.focus()" to every tab, which is clunky but makes it work fine.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
Have you searched Bugzilla for it?
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 12th, 2006
I've been told by the folks at XULplanet that it's part of another bug with the tabbed browsing in Firefox, and that the fix didn't make it into 1.5 but will be in 1.8, apparently.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
1.8! ?
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 12th, 2006
Yep, so I was told.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&id=315434

Actually this bug sounds slightly different from mine, but I suspect the author didn't explain it well. :-)
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
Wasn't there suppose to be a XUL engine that allowed you to develop standalone applications? It used te be a hot thing two years ago, and now it doesn't even show up on Google. I wonder what happened to it.
Permalink  
January 12th, 2006
You mean like this one?

http://www.faser.net/mab/

Or something else?
Permalink MarkTAW 
January 12th, 2006
That's an application that runs within Firefox or Mozilla, not standalone. When they talk about local vs remote they mean running as a firefox extension vs loading it from a URL.
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006
"Hack, real programmers do it in binary!"

Bah. Real programmers don't have 1s and 0s. They only have 0s. And those aren't even 0s. They're "o"s.
Permalink Cory Foy 
January 12th, 2006
http://www.domapi.com/index.cfm?action=features

...cross browser. thoughts?
Permalink sharkfish 
January 12th, 2006
For my purposes, I don't give a shit about cross-browser. :)
Permalink Mark Warner 
January 12th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics