Re: Portable C++ GUI framework
* James Kanze:
On Jun 26, 11:58 am, Michael Oswald <muell...@gmx.net> wrote:
James Kanze wrote:
From what little I've seen, wxWidgets seems to be one of the
more popular frameworks.
Yup. But to me the C++ API of GTKmm is a lot cleaner.
I said more popular, not cleaner:-). I'm not familiar with
other GUI frameworks, and I don't really know the original
poster's needs or desires, so I didn't want to say more. My own
(admittedly limited) contact with wxWidgets left a negative
taste in my mouth---possibly because it was a complete
framework, and not just a library. (I refuse to use anything
which uses a pre-processor to C++, requiring me to write in
another language, and I definitely don't like anything which
takes over main for me.)
I think you're thinking of QT (from Norwegian Troll, he he), not wxWidgets. QT
is so bad that I had to try to install it three times before it finally
succeeded, and in the installation dialogs backspace didn't work and some other
keys didn't work. And one of the main architects wrote a white paper about why
static typing can't work for GUI stuff, contradicted by a host of statically
typed GUI frameworks.
wxWidgets is not based on preprocessing, and it doesn't take over main. Although
its insane use of interdependent globals, at least in the Windows version, means
you'd better not use any library functionality before entry of main.
[Micheal:]
For Example, wxWidgets uses some sort of macro processing for
coupling of widgets with callbacks (which somehow reminds me
on MFC), whereas GTKmm uses signals (like libsigc++ or
boost::signal).
wxWidgets seems to try to emulate MFC, or perhaps they both try to emulate
something even older and more archaic. But, wxWidgets does allow you to use
dynamic signals/slots instead of the macros. The macros are just a more
convenient way for those already familiar with MFC message maps.
[James:]
And Java's Swing isn't that bad, and doesn't use any of those
solutions. What's wrong with the classical event notification
pattern?
"isn't that bad", hey, it's awful! Looks bad, slow, eats resources. :-)
Cheers,
- Alf
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?