On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, DM Smith wrote: > Most of the criticisms that I hear about BibleCS relate to how it looks, > not what it does. I think Manfred's comment about people not developing > for the Mac is true for Windows too. What developer has jumped in to > improve BibleCS? >
The used GUI toolkit is not ideal for modern GUI development. Or at least BibleCS doesn't show that it could be any good. For example, for i18n'd application I would say changing the size of GUI components dynamically is a basic requirement. BibleCS doesn't work with longer UI strings. The underlying toolkit should support i18n better, or a better i18n system should be integrated. "How it looks" is not the only bad thing. It is also bad to use because the UI is designed only half-way. I have looked at the source code while translating the UI into Finnish, and I don't want to touch that code. I don't say BibleTime is much better, but BibleCS should be rewritten first for me to commit to it. Also, I don't want to use a non-free tool for development. > One of the things that BibleCS does well is run on legacy and current > hardware. I found out the hard way with Bible Desktop that there are > many out there that have ancient machines with an ancient OS (e.g. Win > 98) that still want a viable, free Bible program. > As far as I know Qt supports Windows 95, 98, NT4, ME, 2000, XP and Vista. It means that BibleTime platform support is not limited by the GUI toolkit. I don't know yet if there are any other limitations. But as I said I wouldn't remove BibleCS. I hope people continue to support and enhance it, at least if they don't want to code BibleTime or Xiphos or some other frontend. Yours, Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland e-mail: eekai...@mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x) _______________________________________________ sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel@crosswire.org http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page