From: Brock Peabody (brock.peabody_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-08 14:31:50
> -----Original Message-----
> From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On Behalf Of David B. Held
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 1:18 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: [boost] Re: UI++ [was: GUI sublanguage; Re: GUI/GDI template
> library]
>
> "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippe_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:bh06rm$olm$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> > David B. Held wrote:
> > [...]
> > > To bring a bit of sobering reality to the project, I would suggest
> > > picking a simple, even trivial target project (like displaying
some
> > > trivial dialog box).
> >
> > This is exactly what I wanted first: a project based on portable
> > rectangles, windows, stylish frames, menus, fonts & events.
> > Thanks for confirming.
> > [...]
>
> I am of the opinion that the library should use native widgets. It
> sounds to me like you want to create a custom universal widget
> set, but of course, this is going to be a hot-button issue for this
> library. I think the majority of people who have chimed in have
> also voted for or assumed native widgets, but I could be wrong.
I strongly support native widgets too. I want the Windows version of my
program to look like a windows program and the Mac version to look like
a Mac program. This also saves us from having to develop our own
widgets.
> An interesting question is whether the library could support a
> native widget set as an abstract third-party platform. Then people
> who want that exact portable look and feel can get it by specifying
> the custom widget platform.
That's a great point. If our library is well designed it should support
this type of customization naturally. We can have our cake and eat it
too :)
That reminds me of something I was thinking about your post on
wxWindows. Someone could always write a 'driver' targeting wxWindows if
they want quick access to all of the platforms it supports and don't
mind the LGPL.
Brock