Downloads area includes many of these widgets already (calendar, rich text editor) ... maybe we need to help work on improving them B-)

Hi Rebecca.

I know that some are available in the downloads area, but they should be included in the platform.

Some of them are very simple, and we shouldn't need to refrence a dozen of eSpaces\Extensions to have those functionalities.
And they cost software units...

Some more widgets:
* Week calendar, Year calendar, Day Calendar views.

why should they be included?

I don't see any use for most of them for most applications, so I have no need for them.
It only means we get more updates of the richwidgets than adobe flash-updates because of some issues.
I prefer Outsystems concentrating on the core of the platform than the extra richwidgets.

I understand you like to have them. But you can also decide to make 1 reference with all those widgets included for your own development.

Why not?

Every platform has a big focus on UI and web 2.0 widgets.

The point is not if I like them or not. I think they are needed, or at least I see the need in most of them. 
I understand you may not be interested, it's your opinion. But at this point there are 10 persons that also see some value on better widgets.

It's 2012, I don't want to continue building apps like 1990.

Do I have an alternative? Sure. I can make just one reference, manage myself a bunch of widgets and spend some software units along the way. And if Outsystems made that for you? Wouldn't that be better?

Let's face it, RichWidgets is just ok, and I was hopping for some new and better features in the last 2 new versions (6 and 7). Half of the widgets are to give some usability to the TableRecords. Then you have a decente input calendar and tabs widget and a limited collapse/expand widget, add some popup\baloon widgets and you're done.

There are great components in the community that are very stable and use the internal jquery of the platform. So, why not include some of them in the Platform\RichWidgets?

I rather have the community maintain them than outsystems themselves :)

You could read the following as 

Many examples with ASP.NET:  (OUTSYSTEMS)
https://www.infragistics.com (Created by third parties / developers / partners / NOT OUTSYSTEMS)
https://www.obout.com/ (Created by third parties / developers / partners / NOT OUTSYSTEMS)
https://www.componentart.com/ (Created by third parties / developers / partners / NOT OUTSYSTEMS)
https://www.telerik.com/ (Created by third parties / developers / partners / NOT OUTSYSTEMS)

JAVA Examples:   (OUTSYSTEMS)
https://www.zkoss.org/ (Created by third parties / developers / partners / NOT OUTSYSTEMS)
https://vaadin.com/ (Created by third parties / developers / partners / NOT OUTSYSTEMS)

I think it is up to Outsystems to create the tech to allow others to create widgets. I would complain if Outsystems did not have a starter pack of widgets which it does  but it is up to Others to create advanced widgets.

Outsystems is like all other vendors they have a finite budget and must choose where to put the development dollar. For example would people rather outystems concentrated on widgets and not native mobile support.......thought not.

but I would add a TreeView and a TabStrip should  be standard widgets provided by the vendor in this case Outsystems. I would expect those two be present in RichWidgets to enable enterprise level applications