wxWidgets

[da9000]

Hans_ wrote:
WxWidgets uses the native widgets of whichever target OS it's on, resulting in a consistent look-and-feel, unlike

That is all true, but it doesn't really work that way in practice. Unfortunately. (for example aMule on the Mac has some very serious visual anomalies and performance issues when scrolling lists, etc).

We used wxWidgets in my last project and it was not fun. A lot of pain. Overall it's not as bad as other things, but it's got lots of gaping holes and inconsistent behaviour and some really subtle bugs.

Couple of things to consider as well:

I wouldn't necessarily call it bloated, but it's big-ish. Also, not so many applications are written with it in mind vs QT or GTK*, which might make those better port targets. Lastly, it's all C++ so it'll need a capable enough compiler (thinking 68k here).

It's probably worth having anyways... just not so excited about it's existance.

[da9000]

Hans_ wrote:
How long ago was that? And which version of wxWidgets were you using.

As of the first quarter of 2007. At the time we were using the latest version released (primarily Windows platform), but I can't recall the number right now.

Hans_ wrote:
I'm not interested in wxWidgets for the purpose of porting more Linux apps over; I don't care for ports. I'm looking for something that I can use to write new software so that I can easily port it between multiple platform. I don't like GTK or Qt, and wouldn't consider using either of them.

Aha, well now that your goals are stated clearly, I understand your logic. Yes, wxWidgets makes most sense compared to the other two (although the latest QT is technologically more advanced, albeit much harder to port), especially in light of the lack of another good and readily available choice.

Hans_ wrote:
The wxWidgets-aos project compiles on 68k via GCC, so it being C++ is not an issue.

Compiles is one thing, runs properly (aka the compiler outputs the right code for what it was asked to compile) is another. I only brought up this matter since the state of the existing project was unknown to me, and this could have been a big issue. If it also runs properly, then that's good news indeed. That makes it even easier.

Hans_ wrote:
Every toolkit has its quirks... Someone else told me that it was the easiest to use GUI system that he'd tried

Yes, indeed each can have its own issues. Although personally I found wxWidgets obtuse (even in naming conventions, like what's a frame or a window), but then again I was comparing with Cocoa...

Hans_ wrote:
As for the size; it is biggish, but...The size is something I'm prepared to live with because I don't have the time to build completely separate GUIs for each platform... Why not use something that's already there?

Your logic is... logical :-) I only brought up the size matter, not in the sense of bloat, but more of work needed to do the porting (I hadn't checked the source to see how portable it would be for the Amiga's case, so I used generic intuition, since usually bigger is more complex and thus usually harder, no?) But compared to the other choices it's smaller, and like you verified it's already partially working, so in this case and unless there's nothing smaller and more viable, its size is 'good enough'. So you look set to go.


On a personal note, I'd love to work on porting GNUstep to the Amiga one day. "Nuttin' like it!"

[da9000]

Hans_ wrote:
The port is in its very early stages. It's a partial implementation of the base module, so no GUI stuff yet. It is a big project so I was hoping that more people would be interested in helping out. Fortunately it looks like they've used a pretty good structure and there are several different OSes that can be used as examples. The PalmOS port looks like its in its early stages so it could make a good starting point for the core module (not too much code to rip out to make the starting skeleton code.

Aha, thanks for the status update. It seems that it'll be a good start, especially if there's some possibility from borrowing from the PalmOS port.

Hans_ wrote:
Yes their use of wxWindow as base-class for all visible GUI elements is weird. I wonder if that's an artifact of whatever system they started on. I've seen multiple systems or RAD tools call windows frames, which I think is silly.

Agreed 100%. Perhaps it is a vestige of time, as you say.

Hans_ wrote:
I had a quick look at it s website but I'm not completely sure what features it has. The demo did make it look easy to use though. I only shuddered when they opened up vim as editor. ;-)

Hahaha, understandable! I'm no vi fan either, probably because my first editor discovery was pico when I made my switch to Unix, but I'm a huge fan of Bill Joy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Joy), creator extraordineur of vi, BSD, etc. As some of us say: "the other Bill". Other having a positive connotation in this case :-)

As for features, I'm not so sure what you mean, but all the info you need can be found on the web site. Also check out the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNUstep) under the "Capabilities" section, and the links section.

[da9000]

Caius wrote:
Oh, btw: Emacs is the ultimate Unix editor  :-D

Wikipedia begs to differ:

vi became the de facto standard Unix editor and a nearly undisputed hacker favorite outside of MIT until the rise of Emacs after about 1984. As of 2007 either vi or one of its clones can still be found on nearly all installations of Unix. The Single UNIX Specification specifies vi, so any system conforming to the Single UNIX Specification will have vi.

vi is still widely used by users of Unix variants. About half the respondents in a 1991 USENET poll preferred vi.[1] It starts up faster than the bulkier versions of Emacs and uses less memory. Consequently, even some Emacs fans will resort to it as a mail editor and for small editing jobs. In 1999, Tim O'Reilly, founder of the eponymous computer book publisher, stated that his company sold more copies of its vi book than its emacs book.[3]

BTW, I'm no fan of either (Boxer, an PC/MS-DOS editor is my favorite - could do column marking/blocking/selections!! And had awesome macro functionality), nor do I want to start a religious war, but thought I'd point out the statistical evidence (O'Reilly's numbers, etc) :-)

[da9000]

Hence my smiley after "statistical evidence". I agree with your definition of best.

Caius wrote:
Surely there's got to be better alternatives than wxWidgets? With "better" I really mean light-weight. I can only imagine how it would work on a stock A1200. Would most likely be slow, and take a lot of memory. Note that I'm only assuming here. I don't actually know this for sure. But I think that any cross-platform GUI library, aimed at including classic Amiga, should run well on a stock A1200.

I also think it won't be so lightweight, but then again, it's more popular than many other toolkits and on more platforms, which was a concern that Hans had.

As for target machine, I don't know if a stock A1200 should be the base (maybe too low? how about RAM?). I guess it depends on what the authors have in mind.


EDIT:
I've not looked at it in depth, but I recall hearing of this:

http://www.microwindows.org/

And more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windowing_system