Einsteigerfreundliche GUI

[Christian Steins]

Hi,
ich möchte mich ein wenig in C++ einarbeiten.

Welches GUI Framework wäre empfehlenswert?

Es sollte:

- einsteigerfreundlich sein
- light weight
- Plattform übergreifend
- mit DEV c++ (Win7) laufen

Momentan habe ich wxWidgets im Auge.

Christian

[Öö Tiib]

I would prefer Qt to wxWidgets. Qt framework contains everything and
kitchen sink so it is not simple like you seem to ask but is
IMHO more novice friendly. It contains two different ways of building
GUI.

I like it because I can run software made with Qt on Windows, OS-X,
Linux, iOS and Android. Also there are more people who use it and
so more job offers where Qt framework is used than where wxWidgets is
used.

[Christian Steins]

Am 20.11.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Öö Tiib:

>> Welches GUI Framework wäre empfehlenswert?
>>
>> Es sollte:
>>
>> - einsteigerfreundlich sein
>> - light weight
>> - Plattform übergreifend
>> - mit DEV c++ (Win7) laufen
>>
>> Momentan habe ich wxWidgets im Auge.
>
> I would prefer Qt to wxWidgets. Qt framework contains everything and
> kitchen sink so it is not simple like you seem to ask but is
> IMHO more novice friendly. It contains two different ways of building
> GUI.
>
> I like it because I can run software made with Qt on Windows, OS-X,
> Linux, iOS and Android. Also there are more people who use it and
> so more job offers where Qt framework is used than where wxWidgets is
> used.

Sorry for the german OP, clicked on wrong group.
Anyway thanks for your answer. So, QT seems to be preferred over wx by
most c++ people.

Christian

[Scott Lurndal]

I think extrapolation from one to most is a stretch.

[Öö Tiib]

It is unclear what most C++ people prefer. Lot of C++ people write embedded
software that is in devices without graphics output or server-side services
that have some network interface or command-line tools with text I/O or
games that use graphics rendering libraries built upon OpenGL or Direct3D.

I just say that Qt seems more useful for me and more popular than wxWidgets
among C++ programmers whom I know.

Also for example on programmers Q/A site like Stack Overflow it seems to
be more popular. See:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/wxwidgets gives 3K questions
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/qt gives 54K questions
However for example unity3d framework gives also lot of questions ...
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/tagged/unity3d gives 21K questions
... so who knows what most prefer.

[David Brown]

It is always difficult to know what these sorts of statistics mean, or
if they mean anything at all. It could be that QT is 18 times as
popular as wx - but it could also mean that it is 18 times as hard to
use, or that the wx documentation is 18 times as clear as QT's, or that
the wx project forums are 18 times as good as the QT project forums so
that people don't have to ask on Stack Overflow.

I think both are popular toolkits, with their pros and cons - I
certainly would not choose between them based solely on this
information. I also would not dismiss other possible toolkits either.
My advice to the OP is to read a bit on the project webpages, especially
the tutorials. Check that the licensing suits your project, and try out
a "hello world" with each toolkit that looks interesting. Then ask
questions in newsgroups that are a bit more specific once you know what
to ask about.

[Melzzzzz]

Qt has excellent documentation and examples. Heck has IDE as well.
Really easy peazy to quickly get results.




--
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[Öö Tiib]

Good questions are rare on SO, so these are novices who ask there. Count
of ignorant people in trouble has always been quite good indicator of
desire to use and therefore popularity.

> popular as wx - but it could also mean that it is 18 times as hard to
> use, or that the wx documentation is 18 times as clear as QT's, or that

C++ is not really made easy to use for novice. Novice is likely
struggling and most often with C++ itself, its syntax, tools and simple
logic errors. The framework or library just happen to be the frame of
reference for that story of "torment" and "agony" of gaining skills
with C++. ;D

> the wx project forums are 18 times as good as the QT project forums so
> that people don't have to ask on Stack Overflow.

Both have really good documentation and decent forums IMHO so there
can't be such differences.

>
> I think both are popular toolkits, with their pros and cons - I
> certainly would not choose between them based solely on this
> information. I also would not dismiss other possible toolkits either.
> My advice to the OP is to read a bit on the project webpages, especially
> the tutorials. Check that the licensing suits your project, and try out
> a "hello world" with each toolkit that looks interesting. Then ask
> questions in newsgroups that are a bit more specific once you know what
> to ask about.

Yes. One's own eye is the king.
http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qtexamples.html
http://docs.wxwidgets.org/3.1/page_samples.html

[Christian Steins]

Am 20.11.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Öö Tiib:

> I would prefer Qt to wxWidgets.

How about FLTK? Is it dead?

Christian

[Mr Flibble]

neoGFX is coming soon!

/Flibble

[Christian Steins]

Am 26.11.2016 um 16:59 schrieb Mr Flibble:
>> How about FLTK? Is it dead?

> neoGFX is coming soon!

Cool, thanks, will check it out.
http://neogfx.org/

Christian

[Öö Tiib]

On Saturday, 26 November 2016 14:04:40 UTC+2, Christian Steins wrote:
> Am 20.11.2016 um 18:01 schrieb Öö Tiib:
>
> > I would prefer Qt to wxWidgets.
>
> How about FLTK? Is it dead?

No. Several other widget toolkits are more actively developed than
FLTK but it is AFAIK used and not dead. Last stable release of FLTK
is only 2 years old.

[Christian Steins]

Am 26.11.2016 um 17:33 schrieb Christian Steins:

>> neoGFX is coming soon!
>
> Cool, thanks, will check it out.
> http://neogfx.org/

The TestApp (test.exe) on that site is not working (blank window).

Chris

[Öö Tiib]

Most likely it is because MS has screwed up OpenGL support
of Windows and so people have to install and configure that
support manually.