From: Holden Glova <dsafari@...>
Date: 2003-01-11T13:06:28+09:00
Subject: QT on windows [was: Why Fox]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sat, 11 Jan 2003 16:44, Hal E. Fulton wrote:
> ----- 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

Hi Hal,

I'm not sure the issue about QT not being free on windows is correct. This 
certainly used to be the case a year or more ago, but those times have 
passed. They have a non-commercial version which gives no support and binary 
only. There are some other restrictions but I hate legal mumbo jumbo and 
seeing as I don't want to go to sleep yet, i might bookmark this and read it 
later (at bedtime). For those interested: 
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/download/qt-win-noncomm.html
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/noncomm.html

FWIW, I have enjoyed the limited amount of QT experimentation I had.

- -- 
Signed,
Holden Glova
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE+H5h00X8w8X71zPcRAvwaAJ4seXdoM+iDDijMSlZ3IemP6No8nwCaA2HE
t9l/w53d5W7r70hFaVwC1zs=
=57Le
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----