From: "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <znmeb@...>
Date: 2006-10-25T07:21:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Freeride, FXRuby, FXScintilla, etc. (Includes [Fwd: [fxscintilla-users] ANNOUNCE: FXScintilla 1.71 and stopping])

David Vallner wrote:
> M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> 1. Does Freeride have to use FXRuby? How difficult would it be to port
>> to, say, WXRuby?
>>
> 
> Cue GUI toolkit holy war.

Yeah:

1. Tk is ugly
2. Gtk is almost as ugly
3. Qt is beautiful but has a weird license
4. Nobody except me has heard of fltk

Sure makes me glad I am a command line geek.

> For what it's worth, I'd second that port. FOX is a GUI toolkit that
> gets on my nerves in too many ways to count - from how "crossplatform"
> means "looks like Windows 95 everywhere" to how it relentlessly insists
> on opening windows partially off screen by default. (Before anyone gets
> around to it: setting absolute coordinates is only very mildly less
> evil, you're bound to hit a repositioned task bar / equivalent.)

I don't write GUI stuff, so I won't comment on Fox.

> I'd put my money on Gtk rather than WxRuby, what with the latter only
> not crawling its way out of a major -ish rewrite; even if Wx gives a
> little better results on Windowsen (give or take Macs, I've heard wildly
> varied stories on how Unix-borne stuff like X and Gtk works there).

Heck, why not port FreeRide to Rails/AJAX? It would truly suck on an
800x600 screen, but other than that, I can think of some real advantages
to having an IDE that runs in a browser.

That's it -- replace GUI toolkit holy wars with browser holy wars.

My work here is done!