Re: C++ vs. C#
"Mihai N." <nmihai_year_2000@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9BF4C79B7F4BMihaiN@207.46.248.16...
Take a look at DialogBlocks (http://www.dialogblocks.com/)
Great resource editor, but really more than than
(and not free, if that what you like :-)
That looks like a terrific product. I really don't care if its free or
reasonably priced, but I do like using world class products. Most world
class products that I've used were created with a team in a commercial
environment, and not just one person, but there are exceptions.
Essentially the Qt Designer brings the *visual* into Qt world, as Tom
reminded me yesterday, the big advantage of Visual C++ is you can drag and
drop from a toolbox into a dialog and quickly wire up event handlers and
control variables. Qt Designer allows you to do that. Not sure wxWidgets
has that?
wxWidgets works nicely with existing IDEs (including VS).
Why would I want yet another half-baked IDE?
Qt has a plug-in for Visual Studio and it works very well. It also has
another one for Eclipse. The current Qt Creator isn't mature yet and
besides it doesn't work with the VC++ compiler, so I'm staying away from it
for now. But still, you can judge a framework's acceptance and momentum by
the toolset activity, and I like what I see with Qt.
For me the really compelling arguments for wxWidgets are:
- close to MFC makes the learning courve really smooth
Yes. I'm just wondering if the amount of improvement is correspondingly
small. I'm not familiar enough with wxWidgets to know.
- great comittment to Unicode and very early
(Qt started to care kind of late)
Currently QString is native UTF-16 with easy accessors to conver to Utf8 and
others. This seems pretty first class to me.
- great license (Qt has a history of swaying allover,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit)#License)
This was (and still is) one of my main problems.
I don't see past changes of licensing as a bad thing. Microsoft itself used
to charge for the Windows SDK, but now it doesn't. Does that mean they
aren't to be trusted with licensing?
- based on OS controls and rendering. Qt has too much of the
"we will do everything on our own" which is a waste of time
in my book (see my rants on "custom controls" and "you can't
do it better than the OS" :-)
This is a bad direction, and I wonder why it takes so long for people
to see the light
Java tried it's own thing, before giving up and comming up with Swing.
And "Qt used to emulate the native look of its intended platforms, which
occasionally led to slight discrepancies where that emulation was
imperfect.
Recent versions of Qt use the native APIs of the different platforms to
draw
the Qt controls, and so do not suffer from such issues."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_(toolkit)#Use_of_native_UI-rendering_APIs)
So it seems Qt now does it correctly. How is this a negative? It sounds
like they fixed the things you didn't like from before.
Now, I also have some cons for wxWidgets, but when I put things in
ballance...
Sounds like when you last seriously looked to choose between them, you had a
good experience with wxWidgets and Qt was lacking. But now I think Qt has
pulled beyond wxWidgets. Maybe you should give it another look, similar to
how all of us evaluted our decision to use Borland with Visual C++ came out.
-- David