Christian Holm Christensen writes: > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001 10:07:45 -0400 > Brett Viren <bv@bnl.gov> wrote ... > > Second, I actually prefer the approach that QtROOT takes (replace high > > level GUI code instead of providing low level implementation). > > Which however has the disadvantage that you write code explicitly for > Qt, Gtk, X11, Win32, AtheOS, MacOS, ladida, rather than writting for > all of them at once, not caring what the user really prefers. Yes, it is true you give up cross platform (ie, Win32) support when code dirrectly to QtROOT (or other similar designs). This might be debatable since Qt (and GDK/GTK) is cross platform itself. But, for my application, which selfishly is all I care about, the probability of needing to support non-Unix platforms is smaller than a proton's chance of decaying. On the other hand, the time saved not having to deal with TG/Rt quirks is more than made up by investing time to implement a QtROOT like system (especially since QtROOT itself has already done most of the hard work). > > This approach lets you write Qt code directly. You don't need to go > > through the TG classes nor rely on Rt for sig/slot. > > Well, that's really the point of it: Rely on one API - not 4, 5, or > 6. For me, the point is to rely on one *good* API for GUI code. Where "good" is of course user defined. Personally, I am not concerned with having multiple GUI backends (although I certainly understand how some would like this). -Brett.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 17:51:04 MET