On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 09:02:36AM +0100, felix winkelmann wrote: > On 2/5/07, Brandon J. Van Every <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >And why would you prefer a little bit of every toolkit, as opposed to > >picking 1 toolkit and doing a good job wrapping all its functionality? > >If you target every toolkit out there, then it'll be capable of very > >little. Too trivial for more than toys. > > Dependencies are the problem. By allowing multiple configurations > you will serve a greater number of users and platforms. Also, wrapping a > complete toolkit you just end up with a huge glob of wrapper code that > is constantly out of date as you try to cover all corners (even the quickly > changing ones, i.e. more obscure pieces). > > I don't need a super GUI. I just want some portable means of creating > basic, simple GUIs (call them toys, if you want). Add a basic 2D graphics > API, you can then create all the widgets in the world. > > >> I have a good deal of Qt experience, a bit of FLTK and generally not > >> enough resources to create this on my own (surprise!). I also am unable > >> to do any windows-related coding. > >> > >> Would there be someone interested in taking this up or join me with > >> such an undertaking? > >> > > > >It's suicide. Bind Qt. It doesn't matter if Qt is not all things to > >all people. It has a community behind it, which will cause growth of > >Chicken. You dabble a little in every GUI out there, and you have nothing. > > Binding Qt takes too much time, Qt is a big dependency for those who > prefer Gnomish desktops, Qt is too large for some systems. Qt is also quite > slow. Qt is proprietary.
What about Gtk+? José Romildo _______________________________________________ Chicken-users mailing list Chicken-users@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
