From: Kevin Smith <kevinbsmith@...>
Date: 2001-10-17T09:06:34+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:22653] Re: What about FLTK?

--- Mark Hahn <mchahn@facelink.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm looking for opinions on FLTK, especially compared to
> GTK and Tcl/TK.  I have chosen FLTK for my toolkit and 
> the fact FLTK was not mentioned in the thread about 
> toolkits makes me think I might be making a mistake.

A little history...

Ruby-FLTK is the new kid on the block. I wasn't happy with
any of the existing toolkits (Tk, GTK, FOX, Qt), and FLTK
looked like a pretty good C++ toolkit.

Takaaki Tateishi had already created a (very) rough set of
bindings, so I worked with him to create the Ruby/FLTK that
exists today. He did most of the coding, while I provided
design and architecture suggestions, wrote the (English)
documentation, and created several sample apps.

Unfortunately, I haven't put much time into the project
since its first release (0.1), while Takaaki has continued
to advance the project. So I'm not even sure how complete
the current (0.3) release is.

The biggest weakness of FLTK (IMO) is the lack of support
for layout management. This will be addressed in the C++
FLTK 2.0 library, and presumably will be brought into
Ruby/FLTK as well. The other drawback is that the look and
feel of a few of the controls is unusual.

The main strength (IMO) is its simplicity. Event handling,
colors, and fonts are simpler than in most other toolkits. 
Another strength for some projects is the small size of the
FLTK library itself. The C++ FLTK library is very mature,
and has been used in many projects.

Although I haven't been active in Ruby/FLTK lately, I would
be very happy to help by answering any questions, or doing
some troubleshooting if necessary. Part of the reason it
moved to my back burner is that I wasn't sure anyone was
really using it.

Kevin


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com