From: Ruby Script <nospam@...>
Date: 2004-08-10T15:06:16+09:00
Subject: Why the FUD?

We all have our opinions but in the end, facts are all that matters. 
FLTK might be ugly to you, which is fine, but some of the other things 
you posted don't make any sense when compared to easily verifiable facts.

IMHO, I don't think FLTK is any uglier than other toolkits:

http://www.easysw.com/htmldoc/shots.php
http://www-timc.imag.fr/Yves.Usson/personnel/FLE/calcsci1.png
http://www.osc.edu/~jbryan/VolSuite/images/screenshot.png


Lothar Scholz wrote:

> Hello Jamey,
> 
> JC> The good news about this whole thing is that, when it comes to 
> JC> developing gui apps in Ruby, we have a choice!  Be it FXRuby, Ruby-FLTK,
> JC> Ruby/Gtk, or wxRuby.  That, to me, is the best news of all.
> 
> Okay i give you my impression (based on an older 1.1.X version)
> 
> Ruby-FLTK is good and easy to use for In-House applications.
> This is where people want something that is working and they want it
> as fast as possible. Most of them are (very) small applications - i
> mean logic not the dataset.
> 
> If you want to deliver to clients FLTK is often no good option and it
> is absolutely not good for mass market applications:
> 
> - No Tab movement and bad accelerator key handling.
>   Making apps hard to use for Joe Average Poweruser.

WRONG.  What motivates you to write incorrect things about 
FLTK--especially when it is so easy to verify as being incorrect?

Tab movement works fine. I just downloaded FLTK 1.1.5rc2 and created 
dialogs where I could TAB forwards and backwards thru the widgets.

What exactly is wrong with accelerator key handling?  In FLTK when you 
can set the Fl_Widget::shortcut() to be something like:

         mywidget.shortcut(FL_ALT+'f');        // ALT-F
         mywidget.shortcut(FL_CTRL+'x');       // CTRL-X


 > [SNIP]

Stating your opinion is fine but if you present something as fact, 
perhaps you should verify it before you post.