From: Brock Peabody (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-07 17:25:26
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of Philippe A. Bouchard
> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:04 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: GUI sublanguage ?
>
> nimaca2001_at_[hidden] wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > After having followed this thread I wander if we are trying to
> > reinvent
> > the wheel. By googling a bit one can find plenty of "Gui Toolkits"
and
> > here I saw little of them. Not a word on Qt, for example. I never
> > used it for an important project but they give a (good ?) solution
for
> > example to the layout issues discussed so far.
> > If I should criticize them (as a lazy user who is in troble finding
> > his way among all those features) if the fact that there are huge
> > classes that probably need further decomposition of resposibilities.
> >
> > Anyway Qt make life simple for simple apps and provides something
> > that scales quite well for larger projects (I haven't used it but
> > I can use KDE as witness).
> >
> > So I would like to have a clearer idea of the difference between
> > the goal of this thread and existing solutions (i.e. Qt).
>
> At some degree it becomes political issues. I doubt Boost would want
to
> take the same risky path I took (Corel).
>
Qt is a commercial library for one thing. For another, developing a
platform independent GUI environment is only half of our purpose. The
other is to leverage modern C++ techniques to simplify making GUIs. A
quick glance at Qt's class hierarchy should be enough to see that they
are not using such a design:
http://www.trolltech.com/images/classchart.gif.
Brock
