Re: Skinning Again: Which is best, jXUL, XUL, or what?

From: Sudsy (bitbucket44_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 02/16/04 

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 20:00:59 -0500

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
<snip>
> You're basically intent on using a very contentious tone here. Why? Your
> original post made 5 rash statements, each of which I exposed as rash, and I
> noticed that you snipped all of them away here.
>
> To your latest point, I'd argue that "serious" (as you put it) users are not
> necessarily the profitable consumers in bulk. I would *love* to pin down
> all the skinning technology necessary to be able to make apps that
> teenagers thought was "cool", if it meant that I could sell more of them.

I was wondering if you'd reply and am happy to see that you have. Let
me explain my position.
Would you pay $50 extra for a cell phone with a changeable face-plate,
even if those plates cost $20 per? I'd rather invest in a Motorola
unit which has practically unbreakable hinges.
Would you spend money on a non-functional rear wing and wheel covers
for your car? I'd rather spend it on the engine, perhaps adding a
supercharger and EFI.
Would you spend time and money "skinning" an application? I'd prefer
to profile the code and make it perform better and faster, enhancing
the user experience.
The common theme here is appearance vs function. Sure, you can dress
a car up so that it "looks" fast, but I'd prefer a relatively non-
descript one which can blow the doors off the competition.
Same thing with software. Although I'll admit to not having looked,
I don't know that you can apply skins to something like Eclipse. In
point of fact, the ONLY software I've seen which uses that capability
plays audio/video media on the M$ platform.
So why the focus on the bling? Do cell phone stores make a mint selling
face-plates or is the bread-and-butter in the phones themselves and the
plan?
So pardon my confusion. I guess I must just be an old fart who prefers
function over form.
But I sincerely hope that you find what you're looking for.