Re: GUI Library Choice
- Posted by Vinoba Apr 01, 2011
- 2611 views
can I ask why you appear to be so risk averse? generally speaking it is fairly painless to try one or another lib or version before deciding. I am on a dialup so I do tend to decide before downloading anything myself.
I am planning medium term, and cannot afford to address problems of "lack of support". I have the choice of 4 LIBs for GUI, and have to decide BEFORE starting, as to which one I will use. While any of the four might do, the fact that none of them is promoted as integrated with Euphoria (as opposed to say, Agena, or PureBasic, I have to be more penetrating in my search for the right tools.
I thought most of the win32lib IDE problems had been solved by Ck. see some previous forum post for download links. I was able to translate the IDE using that code and a pretranslated exe was included too. this was still using the 3.1 compatible libs with 4.0, all the necessary win32lib files were included. though, I don't use win32lib myself except for the occasional program tryout or test.
if the IDE is a limiting factor, Qt-designer is hard to beat for pure joy of layout building......
For me, the quality IDE itself is not a limiting factor. I am perfectly happy to use simpler tools such as Wordpad, but I have to consider the needs of others who are or will be helping me and all these people are the next generation IDE oriented nerds. In that light, I welcome your statement regarding QT designer, which confirms what I read on other forums.
many of the euqt/Qt problems are win9x or Qt4.5 beta related. I may not have updated the readme and eu4qt issues tracker completely yet.
Qt is already planning out Qt4.8 while Qt4.5 is the last version that works on win9x. I don't think it will be much problem linking to a later Qt version, it may work "as is" now, even with out rebuilding euqt.
Thanks for confirming what I had vaguely understood to be the case. At $80 for a used Pentium 3 with 20GB HD including Win XP, I do not want to think about Win 98. It was good while it lasted (so was Dos and win 3.1). The intended audience of my new effort can easily afford this.
you can't yet compile Qt or euqt themselfs with watcom because qmake doesn't support watcom, although it could easily with a custom makspec file.
Qt and euqt compiles ok with minGW gcc and works with watcom built eui and euphoria programs translated with watcom just fine. 4.0 and 4.1 much more has to be wrapped but I use it daily.
That is a concern, which I am hoping I will be able to overcome by two separate compilations (Euphoria program separately from QT) using two compilers and linking later. Alternatively, I will experiment with compilation of both together under one compiler (not Watcom)
but the cost is the considerable size of the Qt libs and toolchain required. they do have embedded versions so you can ship only those libs that are needed with your app, but again you have increased cost just to get setup.
At $69 for 1 TB SATA HD, I am not concerned about size. My intended audience will have to afford this.
they do have embedded versions so you can ship only those libs that are needed with your app, but again you have increased cost just to get setup.
Embedded version is low priority for the time being. The need may arise 2 years down the road.
I wish to emphasize, that none of my statements were intended as criticism of your efforts. You explain very well the limitations under which you are working. Anything I said was to bring into focus the availability and viability of Euphoria and QT. You have been very helpful.
