From: Matthew Austern (austern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-02 15:09:03
Beman Dawes wrote:
> How many would like to see the Standard Library include:
>
> * A low complexity GUI library: A handful (5?)
> * A medium complexity GUI library: A larger handful (8?)
> * A high complexity GUI library: A handful (5?)
> * No, don't include a GUI library: Lots (>30)
>
> This is a marked contrast to other possible libs discussed, such as
> persistence, threads, and so forth. All of these were greeted
> positively. The only one we took a straw poll on was a GUI library,
> because it was the only one that seemed controversial to the audience,
> which appeared to include many experienced developers.
>
> So there is a storm warning flying on this one. That doesn't mean Boost
> should steer clear, but it probably does mean rough waters ahead.
Every time I've thought about writing a portable gui library, I've
asked myself: given that there are already a number of free or
freeish portable gui libraries (Tk, gtk+, QT,...), what would be
the role of yet another one? If I told someone that this new library
was The AT&T GUI Library, or The BOOST GUI Library, or even The
Standard C++ GUI Library, why would that be enough reason for
someone to think that it was any more special than all of the
other free portable GUI libraries that already exist?
I've concluded that I don't want to do this unless I can come up with
such a good idea that I'd end up with something obviously better
than all the others. So far I haven't had such an idea.
--Matt