Hi Aaron and all!

Aaron J Reichow <reic0024 at d.umn.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> 
> > "Blanchard, Todd" <todd.blanchard at cendant.com> wrote:
> > > If you're going to play with something like that, why not do it with this?
> > >
> > > http://wxwindows.org/
> > >
> > > Then us mac people could play too.
> 
> Mac folks can use GTK+, at least on OS X.  Of course, it isn't completely
> finished, but it doesn't require X11. But it does run CinePaint (nee
> Film Gimp), though in an alpha state.
> 
> http://gtk-osx.sourceforge.net/
> 
> Sure, it doesn't look like a native Mac app, but it's better than nothing.
> I too would rather have someone use an API that looked native, but at the
> same time, I'd much rather have GTK+ rather than nothing. I'm not doing
> the work, and if Goran chooses to bestow upon us something fun and
> potentially useful, I'm not going to complain.

:)

> > 1. It is C-focused. So are Squeak plugins and the make structure etc in
> > Squeak. AFAIK wxWin is C++, not sure if I want to go there... :)
> 
> There is some sort of C API for wxWindows. That, or one is generated by
> SWIG. A number of languages which only have a C interface have wxWindows
> libraries; DrScheme/MzScheme and Python come to mind.  But then again,
> AFAIK, SWIG doesn't support Squeak, or else wxWindows would be a snap- but
> then again, so would GTK+ most likely.

Let me be frank: My C and C++ is pretty rusty. Combined with trying to
figure out low level integration issues in making Squeak plugins - it is
pushing my limits. I am no Andreas or Ian. :)

BUT... if you or someone else steps up to the plate and figure out how
to Swig wxWindows so that we can use it through C - then perhaps it
could be an interesting venue too.

But as long as noone steps up - I will instead focus on what I can
handle: Gtk2, since it seems pretty "simple" in comparison.

> > 2. I have heard here and there that wx is slow and also suffers a bit
> > from the LCD problems (is that the right name? Least Common
> > Denominator?). But that is just hearsay. Not sure about how wx evolves
> > nowadays, is it live and kicking like Gtk?
> 
> GTK+ is used by more people, so not surprisingly, I'd say GTK+ is more
> alive in some ways. But otherwise, wxWindows is used plenty of places and
> is an active project.

I looked it over yesterday and yes, it looks pretty alive. I have looked
at it from time to time to see where it is going.

> What do you mean by LCD problems?  Rather, what kinds of problems?

Well, the fact that mapping onto other backend kits may make the
framework only offerint stuff that is available on all platforms. But I
read about it and it seems wx has tried to avoid that.

> > 3. I like Gtk. :) It looks very nice, seems to have a lot of momentum
> > and is AFAIK very themeable.
> 
> If you like the look of GTK+, you're in luck. wxWindows- on Unix and
> Linux- uses GTK+ as its widget set. If you support wxWindows, you support
> GTK+.
> 
> But then again, if the reason you like GTK+ is not the looks of it but
> rather the way you code it, or maybe you like the hierarchy or some other
> GTK+ specific idiosyncrasy then I have no answer for you.

My reasons for going with Gtk2 are multiple. It seems very alive, has
very good functionality, and is getting more and more cross-platform. It
is also C-based - a very big advantage. And it is free.

regards, Göran