wxWidgets is dead, rest in peace :-)

[olivier...@gmail.com]

Hi all,
wxWidgets is not dead for me but (sorry for english person), there is
an article of Ultimate++ that says that wxWidgets was a good library
but is now dying. Here is the link :

http://www.programmez.com/magazine_articles.php?id_article=981&&titre=Ultimate++,%20l%E2%80%99ultime%20IDE%20pour%20le%20d%C3%A9veloppement%20d%E2%80%99applications%20C++%20multi-plates-formes

And what is funny is that the reason why wxWidgets is not good any
more is that it uses MACROS (i mean EVENT_TABLE). I suppose this
article doesn't know the Connect method.

Sorry for non French people, it was a funny thread. Why Audacity,
Code::Blocks and Amaya don't use Ultimate++....strange :-)

Good night

[Teo Fonrouge]

I agree with you that ::Connect is more clean (for me) that using the
EVENT_TABLE macros.

wxWidgets has a lot of more features that other libraries, and covers a wide
range of final applications, has excellent support, and the user base
installed is *HUGE*. There is also very good IDE's for wxWidgets
(dialogblocks .i.e.).

However here is link for a english comparation from their website:

http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$vswx$en-us.html

best regards

Teo Fonrouge

[personaje]

On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 5:44 PM, <olivier...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
> wxWidgets is not dead for me but (sorry for english person), there is
> an article of Ultimate++ that says that wxWidgets was a good library
> but is now dying. Here is the link :
>
> http://www.programmez.com/magazine_articles.php?id_article=981&&titre=Ultimate++,%20l%E2%80%99ultime%20IDE%20pour%20le%20d%C3%A9veloppement%20d%E2%80%99applications%20C++%20multi-plates-formes

perhaps it *is* dead, but it has returned as a zombie =P

[Igor Korot]

Olivier,

Or maybe it's dead only for the French-speaking people, as there is no
link to English translation... ;-)

Thank you.

>_______________________________________________
>wx-users mailing list
>wx-u...@lists.wxwidgets.org
>http://lists.wxwidgets.org/mailman/listinfo/wx-users

[rob...@roebling.de]

> However here is link for a english comparation from their website:
>
> http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$vswx$en-us.html

Which shows or proves nothing.

Robert

[Matthias Buelow]

"Le code est du C++ ultra moderne à la manière de Boost ou de Blitz++"...

Wow.. it's not just modern, it's _ultra_-modern. I'm thoroughly
impressed. Of course nothing less could be expected from a software
called "Ultimate++".

[Jan Houska]

rob...@roebling.de wrote:
>> However here is link for a english comparation from their website:
>>
>> http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$vswx$en-us.html
>

> Which shows or proves nothing.
>
> Robert

Why, it does clearly show that there are four more bombs in U++ than
there are in wxWidgets. Or, to put in in a different way, almost 25%
more bombs. Nice achievment, IMHO.

Jan

--
Jan Houska HUMUSOFT s.r.o.
hou...@humusoft.com Pobrezni 20
http://www.humusoft.com 186 00 Praha 8
tel: ++ 420 284 011 730 Czech Republic
fax: ++ 420 284 011 740

[Timothy Warren]

I think the wxWidgets one looks more native.

_______________________________________________
wx-users mailing list
wx-u...@lists.wxwidgets.org
http://lists.wxwidgets.org/mailman/listinfo/wx-users

--
"But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness." 2 Timothy 2:16 (KJV)
- Timothy J. Warren
http://timshomepage.net
t...@timshomepage.net

[todma]

On Apr 10, 9:21 am, "Timothy Warren" <t...@timshomepage.net> wrote:
> I think the wxWidgets one looks more native.

Is that good or bad? (and what does it mean?)
Todd.

[Vadim Zeitlin]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 08:07:59 -0700 (PDT) todma <toddmars...@yahoo.com> wrote:

t> On Apr 10, 9:21 am, "Timothy Warren" <t...@timshomepage.net> wrote:
t> > I think the wxWidgets one looks more native.
t>
t> Is that good or bad?

I don't know what was meant by this in this particular case but in general
it would be good because it means we've succeeded with our goal. Which is
to provide a way to portably use the native platform UI (unlike Qt or Java
AWT).

Regards,
VZ

--
TT-Solutions: wxWidgets consultancy and technical support
http://www.tt-solutions.com/

[Jorgen Bodde]

The comparison page was even worse and totally unfair in the past. He
pasted a fully commented wxWidgets sample (e.g. 50% comments to
explain to the newbies) and a clean fully optimized non commented U++
example next to it. Sorry, but that's no comparison. I'm glad he
realised that and now the differences aren't that big anymore.

By the way I like the wxWidgets version better because it is more
transparent. I don't like it that a lot of things are done under the
hood without me (as developer) not having control over them.

- Jorgen

[todma]

> By the way I like the wxWidgets version better because it is more
> transparent. I don't like it that a lot of things are done under the
> hood without me (as developer) not having control over them.
>
> - Jorgen
>

That's very subjective; it's likely the U++ classes are well defined.

Is U++ non-native?

It appears that design ideas (templates, non-ID's ...) seem pretty
good. Since the arguments mentioned in this thread are peripheral to
the design itself, perhaps someone can frankly rebut items of design
differences. (non-defensively and objectively).
Since you could wrap wx functionality in the similar class designs as U
++ I see no reason why good ideas are not inherently good ideas.
Todd.

[Timothy Warren]

If I remember correctly, the main reason is that wxWidgets has such a long history, before a lot of this sort of code design was practical.

_______________________________________________
wx-users mailing list
wx-u...@lists.wxwidgets.org
http://lists.wxwidgets.org/mailman/listinfo/wx-users

[jaf...@ecstatico.net]

Hi All.  In no way is wxWidgets dead.  I have ventured to try many of the C++ Toolkits available out there, and i can tell you straight away that in terms of accessibility and reliability, WxWidgets wins hands down, not to mention it's other variants like wxPython and wxPerl, just to name a few.  Of course from a visually disabled computer programmer's perspective, I must take accessibility very seriously, and that is sadly lacking in the more so-called modern toolkits like U++.  But most important i think is the contribution of community members, especially the developers of this awesome toolkit who take the time to clear doubts and problems faced by inexperienced users like myself which is the distinguishing factor that will ensure the longivity of wxWidgets, not to mention their dedication in it's development and spread.  So you see, I am not worried that we seem to lack behind in modernity or conceptualization because we will catch up and i am confident, sooner then our critics think.  Cheers!

----- Original Message -----

From: Timothy Warren

To: wx-u...@lists.wxwidgets.org

Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 10:29 PM

Subject: Re: wxWidgets is dead, rest in peace :-)

_______________________________________________
wx-users mailing list
wx-u...@lists.wxwidgets.org
http://lists.wxwidgets.org/mailman/listinfo/wx-users

__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 2740 (20071221) __________

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.

http://www.eset.com

[Richard]

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

todma <toddmars...@yahoo.com> spake the secret code
<5534cf0d-58c8-4df1...@u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com> thusly:

>It appears that design ideas (templates, non-ID's ...) seem pretty
>good. Since the arguments mentioned in this thread are peripheral to
>the design itself, perhaps someone can frankly rebut items of design
>differences. (non-defensively and objectively).

I thought I remembered reading on the wiki that these are the ideas
that are being considered for wxWidgets 4, or whatever they're calling
the next major design revision of wxWidgets.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download
<http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html>

Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>