From: "Hal E. Fulton" <hal9000@...>
Date: 2003-01-11T12:44:14+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Fox

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Carrera" <dcarrera@math.umd.edu>
To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 9:06 PM
Subject: Re: Why Fox


> Holden, Thank you for your response.  I found it helpful.
> Perhaps the performance issues I notice are unique to the machine I had
> for some reason.  I'll keep trying to figure out why fox won't compile on
> the Sun.  I'll see how that works out.
> 
> Lyle, thank you for your offer of help.  I'll get back to you after I go
> back to work.
> 
> Thanks to all who clarified the role of Fox in Ruby.

Well, I'll add my $0.02.

I'm not aware that Fox is any kind of standard for Ruby.
Someone playing with FreeRIDE might get that impression,
but even FR will use other GUIs in the future; Fox was
just the first.

Some people (Curt Hibbs et al.) are working on the 
bindings for wxWindows. Then a wxWindows engine for 
FreeRIDE will be developed. 

I don't know wxWin, but some people rave about it.

I find FX/Ruby acceptable in its API and its look/feel.
But then I use Windoze a lot.

And, too, the API feels funny in some places. It seems
to require a lot of setup and such, relative to Tk. But
the look/feel is to me far superior.

I have a friend who *hates* Fox. He hates the look of it.
He hates that it's not (yet) themable. Not only that, but 
he says he has his limit of N toolkits installed and he
refuses to install the (N+1)th. For that matter, he's not
fond of wxWin either. He seems to like GTK and Qt.

Most people I talk to seem to think Qt is the best overall.
But if you care about compatibility with Windows -- it's
not free on MS platforms.

Enough rambling. I've told you all I know
and then some.

Hal