Qt vs. FOX vs. ? (was Help on installing ruby-qt on windowsXP)</TIT= LE> </HEAD> <BODY> > -----Original Message----- > From: Pierre Brengard [<A HREF=3D"mailto:pbrengard@= bct-technology.com">mailto:pbrengard@bct-technology.com</A>] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:19 AM > To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org > Subject: Re: Help on installing ruby-qt on windowsX= P > >>I'm curious why you've decided to try the >>non-commercial version for Windows. >>I was looking into that last week and >>decided to try FOX instead because >>1) the non-commerical version is Qt version 2.3,= not >> version 3 (unless you just download= a 30-day evaluation >>2) getting the Windows commercial version in ord= er to get >> version 3 support is prohibitively = expensive! - $1550 > but, the Ruby extension for Qt 3 does not exist yet = ! > So, no regret. I assume that the Ruby extension for Qt will support vers= ion 3 someday. I just don't want to put in the effort to learn Qt if = at some point I'm going to have to pay $1550 to upgrade. Of course I = could develop under Linux to avoid this problem, but I want the things I de= velop to be usable by people running under Windows too. I get the impression that Qt is a somewhat better GUI too= lkit that others. I also get the impression that FOX is the next best= choice. I'm leaning toward spending my time learning FOX unless some= one wants to explain to me why I should use Qt instead or why I should cons= ider some other GUI toolkit that has Ruby support. <CODE> ***************************************************************************= ******** WARNING: All e-mail sent to and from this address will be received or otherwise recorded by the A.G. Edwards corporate e-mail system and is subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to, someone other than the recipient. ***************************************************************************= ********* </CODE></BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001

From: "Volkmann, Mark" Date: 2002-09-17T21:47:46+09:00 Subject: Qt vs. FOX vs. ? (was Help on installing ruby-qt on windowsXP) This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand this format, some or all of this message may not be legible. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25E48.4A9CEE10 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > -----Original Message----- > From: Pierre Brengard [mailto:pbrengard@bct-technology.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:19 AM > To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org > Subject: Re: Help on installing ruby-qt on windowsXP > >>I'm curious why you've decided to try the >>non-commercial version for Windows. >>I was looking into that last week and >>decided to try FOX instead because >>1) the non-commerical version is Qt version 2.3, not >> version 3 (unless you just download a 30-day evaluation >>2) getting the Windows commercial version in order to get >> version 3 support is prohibitively expensive! - $1550 > but, the Ruby extension for Qt 3 does not exist yet ! > So, no regret. I assume that the Ruby extension for Qt will support version 3 someday. I just don't want to put in the effort to learn Qt if at some point I'm going to have to pay $1550 to upgrade. Of course I could develop under Linux to avoid this problem, but I want the things I develop to be usable by people running under Windows too. I get the impression that Qt is a somewhat better GUI toolkit that others. I also get the impression that FOX is the next best choice. I'm leaning toward spending my time learning FOX unless someone wants to explain to me why I should use Qt instead or why I should consider some other GUI toolkit that has Ruby support. *********************************************************************************** WARNING: All e-mail sent to and from this address will be received or otherwise recorded by the A.G. Edwards corporate e-mail system and is subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to, someone other than the recipient. ************************************************************************************ ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25E48.4A9CEE10 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Qt vs. FOX vs. ? (was Help on installing ruby-qt on windowsXP)</TIT= LE> </HEAD> <BODY> > -----Original Message----- > From: Pierre Brengard [<A HREF=3D"mailto:pbrengard@= bct-technology.com">mailto:pbrengard@bct-technology.com</A>] > Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 4:19 AM > To: ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org > Subject: Re: Help on installing ruby-qt on windowsX= P > >>I'm curious why you've decided to try the >>non-commercial version for Windows. >>I was looking into that last week and >>decided to try FOX instead because >>1) the non-commerical version is Qt version 2.3,= not >> version 3 (unless you just download= a 30-day evaluation >>2) getting the Windows commercial version in ord= er to get >> version 3 support is prohibitively = expensive! - $1550 > but, the Ruby extension for Qt 3 does not exist yet = ! > So, no regret. I assume that the Ruby extension for Qt will support vers= ion 3 someday. I just don't want to put in the effort to learn Qt if = at some point I'm going to have to pay $1550 to upgrade. Of course I = could develop under Linux to avoid this problem, but I want the things I de= velop to be usable by people running under Windows too. I get the impression that Qt is a somewhat better GUI too= lkit that others. I also get the impression that FOX is the next best= choice. I'm leaning toward spending my time learning FOX unless some= one wants to explain to me why I should use Qt instead or why I should cons= ider some other GUI toolkit that has Ruby support. <CODE> ***************************************************************************= ******** WARNING: All e-mail sent to and from this address will be received or otherwise recorded by the A.G. Edwards corporate e-mail system and is subject to archival, monitoring or review by, and/or disclosure to, someone other than the recipient. ***************************************************************************= ********* </CODE></BODY> </HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C25E48.4A9CEE10--