Standard GUI Toolkit

[Alessandro Pinto]

Dear All,
I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.

The features I'm looking for are:
-Platform independence
-Reasonable users support
-Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the project
will be under development for the years to come)

Thanks

CIAO
Alessandro

[db]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

On Fri, 6 Feb 2004 23:37:25 -0800
"Alessandro Pinto" <apinto@eecs.be rkeley.edu> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dear All,
> I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
> I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.
>
> The features I'm looking for are:
> -Platform independence
> -Reasonable users support
> -Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the project
> will be under development for the years to come)[/color]

www.wxwindows.org ?

br
db

[David Rasmussen]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Alessandro Pinto wrote:[color=blue]
> Dear All,
> I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
> I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.
>
> The features I'm looking for are:
> -Platform independence
> -Reasonable users support
> -Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the project
> will be under development for the years to come)
>[/color]

www.wxwindows.org is your answer.

/David

[Phlip]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Alessandro Pinto wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dear All,
> I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
> I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.
>
> The features I'm looking for are:
> -Platform independence
> -Reasonable users support
> -Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the[/color]
project[color=blue]
> will be under development for the years to come)[/color]

TCL/Tk has bindings for Ruby, Python, Perl, & doubtless others. It might
have a binding for C++.

Why are you using C++?

--
Phlip

http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces

[Cornelis Wessels]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Alessandro Pinto wrote:
[color=blue]
> Dear All,
> I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
> I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.
>
> The features I'm looking for are:
> -Platform independence
> -Reasonable users support
> -Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the project
> will be under development for the years to come)
>
> Thanks
>
> CIAO
> Alessandro
>
>[/color]

Take a look at FLTK. www.fltk.org

--
Kees

[Alessandro Pinto]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Phlip wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alessandro Pinto wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>>Dear All,
>>I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
>>I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.
>>
>>The features I'm looking for are:
>>-Platform independence
>>-Reasonable users support
>>-Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the[/color]
>
> project
>[color=green]
>>will be under development for the years to come)[/color]
>
>
> TCL/Tk has bindings for Ruby, Python, Perl, & doubtless others. It might
> have a binding for C++.
>
> Why are you using C++?[/color]

The main reason is that I'm developing a synthesis software. For
performance reasons C or C++ are the most commonly used languages.
It woould be nice to have a graphical user interface and I want the
whole thing to be integrated within the same language.

Why should I use another language?

Thanks
Alessandro


[color=blue]
>
> --
> Phlip
> http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?Tes...UserInterfaces
>
>[/color]

[Alessandro Pinto]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Cornelis Wessels wrote:
[color=blue]
> Alessandro Pinto wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Dear All,
>> I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
>> I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.
>>
>> The features I'm looking for are:
>> -Platform independence
>> -Reasonable users support
>> -Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the
>> project
>> will be under development for the years to come)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> CIAO
>> Alessandro
>>
>>[/color]
>
> Take a look at FLTK. www.fltk.org
>[/color]


You are the second person that suggest me to use FLTK. The only think I
don't like is the use of callbacks instead of messages (singnal and
slots in Qt terminology). I know that Qt is becoming a standard in the
commercial world and I was wandering if there is somenthing similar from
the free world.
I'm using WxWindows now and it seems good.

Thanks to you All

Alessandro

[Phlip]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Alessandro Pinto wrote:
[color=blue]
> You are the second person that suggest me to use FLTK. The only think I
> don't like is the use of callbacks instead of messages (singnal and
> slots in Qt terminology). I know that Qt is becoming a standard in the
> commercial world and I was wandering if there is somenthing similar from
> the free world.[/color]

Qt relies on MOC, IIRC, which is a strap-on addition to C++ providing
"signals and slots" messages. This is yet another example of folks using C++
for GUI code and finding themselves re-inventing dynamic typing. But I
suspect I could have re-invented it without writing new C++ keywords.
[color=blue]
> I'm using WxWindows now and it seems good.[/color]

Write unit tests on all your code, including GUI code, and see about using
the Model View Controller pattern. It might give you what "signals and
slots" was giving you.

But props for demanding real Free Software.
[color=blue]
> Why should I use another language?[/color]

Folks sometimes adopt a technology because "everyone else was doing it", not
because they thought thru the options. So I request they reveal the thought
process. I'm leery of your "performanc e reasons" - the GUI hardly toasts CPU
cycles these days. But "integrated within the same language" is always a
good one.

--
Phlip

http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces

[Claudio Puviani]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

"Alessandro Pinto" <apinto@eecs.be rkeley.edu> wrote[color=blue]
> I know that Qt is becoming a standard in the commercial world
> and I was wandering if there is somenthing similar from the free
> world.[/color]

Yes, Qt.

Qt is available with a free non-commercial license that allows you to write
open-source software, freeware, etc. and, I assume, software for your personal
non-commercial use.

Now, as it's been said many times before, GUI toolkits are OFF-TOPIC for this
newsgroup. This newsgroup is about the standard C++ language, not about
compilers or libraries or newfangled languages or operating systems.

Claudio Puviani

[Phlip]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Claudio Puviani wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > I know that Qt is becoming a standard in the commercial world
> > and I was wandering if there is somenthing similar from the free
> > world.[/color]
>
> Yes, Qt.
>
> Qt is available with a free non-commercial license that allows you to[/color]
write[color=blue]
> open-source software, freeware, etc. and, I assume, software for your[/color]
personal[color=blue]
> non-commercial use.[/color]

That's "free" as in "beer", not "speech". There's a slight (but utterly
off-topic) difference.
[color=blue]
> Now, as it's been said many times before, GUI toolkits are OFF-TOPIC for[/color]
this[color=blue]
> newsgroup. This newsgroup is about the standard C++ language, not about
> compilers or libraries or newfangled languages or operating systems.[/color]

Beer is off topic on this newsgroup too! Snarl snarl gnash gnash!

--
Phlip

http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces

[Alessandro Pinto]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Claudio Puviani wrote:[color=blue]
> "Alessandro Pinto" <apinto@eecs.be rkeley.edu> wrote
>[color=green]
>>I know that Qt is becoming a standard in the commercial world
>>and I was wandering if there is somenthing similar from the free
>>world.[/color]
>
>
> Yes, Qt.
>
> Qt is available with a free non-commercial license that allows you to write
> open-source software, freeware, etc. and, I assume, software for your personal
> non-commercial use.
>
> Now, as it's been said many times before, GUI toolkits are OFF-TOPIC for this
> newsgroup. This newsgroup is about the standard C++ language, not about
> compilers or libraries or newfangled languages or operating systems.
>
> Claudio Puviani
>
>[/color]
I don't want to be polemic. As stated:

"[Off Topic] The article must primarily concern itself with some issue
related to the C++ language, and be pertinent to the global C++
Community. Topics include the syntax and semantics of the language,
discussion of tricks and techniques, case studies and example programs,
issues of software engineering related to C++, issues of software
management related to C++, issue of design philosophy related to C++,
design patterns related to C++, etc. In particular, articles pertaining
solely to the C subset of the C++ language are off-topic and belong in C
newsgroups, such as comp.lang.c.mod erated.

Articles that do not pertain directly to the issues listed above, or
articles that target a particular geographic area (e.g. announcements
for C++ classes in California), or a particular institution (e.g. C++
Compilers are available at a reduced rate to employees of XYZ Corp.), or
any other limited segment of the C++ community are liable to rejection.
Short announcements of new books and events are currently the only
acceptable articles of a commercial nature."

There is nothing concerning GUI in C++. I think my question fits in
"issues of software engineering related to C++".

Thanks to to all of you that have provided USEFUL answers.

Alessandro Pinto

[Phlip]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Alessandro Pinto wrote:
[color=blue]
> There is nothing concerning GUI in C++. I think my question fits in
> "issues of software engineering related to C++".
>
> Thanks to to all of you that have provided USEFUL answers.[/color]

Some folks like a definition of "on topic" small enough to fit in their
brains.

If the question is "what relatively portable library does X", then the
answer should be "try libraries A,B or C, but their forums can give the best
answers for questions directly about them."

Posting to the narrowest technical newsgroup is always good - after the
topic has been narrowed.

--
Phlip

http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?TestFirstUserInterfaces

[Duncus Colossus]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

Try wxWindows (www.wxWindows.org).
It's free (even less restrictive than LGPL I think).
It gives native look n feel. I've tried it on Windows and Solaris with
satisfaction.

Duncus

"Alessandro Pinto" <apinto@eecs.be rkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:HHGVb.1077 7$ut5.1455@news svr29.news.prod igy.com...[color=blue]
> Phlip wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Alessandro Pinto wrote:
> >
> >[color=darkred]
> >>Dear All,
> >>I'm looking for C++ GUI toolkit which is free and standard.
> >>I'm currently using the Fox toolkit.
> >>
> >>The features I'm looking for are:
> >>-Platform independence
> >>-Reasonable users support
> >>-Some guarantees on the toolkit llifetime (it is important that the[/color]
> >
> > project
> >[color=darkred]
> >>will be under development for the years to come)[/color]
> >
> >
> > TCL/Tk has bindings for Ruby, Python, Perl, & doubtless others. It might
> > have a binding for C++.
> >
> > Why are you using C++?[/color]
>
> The main reason is that I'm developing a synthesis software. For
> performance reasons C or C++ are the most commonly used languages.
> It woould be nice to have a graphical user interface and I want the
> whole thing to be integrated within the same language.
>
> Why should I use another language?
>
> Thanks
> Alessandro
>
>
>[color=green]
> >
> > --
> > Phlip
> > http://www.xpsd.org/cgi-bin/wiki?Tes...UserInterfaces
> >
> >[/color][/color]

[Dylan Nicholson]

Re: Standard GUI Toolkit

"Duncus Colossus" <nospam@nospam. com> wrote in message news:<c0ea4o$kf b$1@newshost.mo t.com>...[color=blue]
> Try wxWindows (www.wxWindows.org).
> It's free (even less restrictive than LGPL I think).
> It gives native look n feel. I've tried it on Windows and Solaris with
> satisfaction.
>[/color]
I wouldn't recommend it particularly to non-expert C++ programmers, as
it was designed and written before modern compilers and techniques
became wide-spread. It is not exception-safe or type-safe, being full
of C-style casts from untyped (non-standard) container classes. The
justifications for these problems were understandable enough 5 years
ago, but today are somewhat questionable, and certainly likely to
encourage poor programming style.

Having said that however, it does do the job it was designed to do
pretty damn well.

Dylan