gregturp at attbi.com
Thu May 8 20:50:01 UTC 2003
Christian Henz wrote:
>On Thu, May 08, 2003 at 07:15:20PM -0400, nickt wrote:
>>So far I think the GUI kits on Linux are a bit primitive compared to
>>what I was using on Windows.
>>I could do cool stuff with Kylix very easily. I think Borland C++
>>Builder was the best development tool ever made for Rapid development
>>work. And since I am a Rapid kind of guy it suited my way of doing
>>things perfectly. FLTK and GTK are not rapid tools, sorry, they just
>>aren't, they are very clumsy for doing rapid prototyping with (but FLTK
>>is better than GTK at this).
>I am not familiar with Kylix (isn't that Delphi/Pascal really?), but if you want to develop C++ gui programs, be sure to check out QT (http://www.trolltech.com/) which is available as Free Software and comes with a nice GUI builder (designer). It also integrates with the KDevelop IDE (which needs KDE, but is useful for QT-only apps too), but I have only looked briefly at that one so far...
>I've never done any Windows coding, but from what I read, the MFC is primitive in comparison to QT (which is also available for Windows btw.).
>Of course there are also GUI builders and C++-wrappers for GTK, but I'm not familiar with those either...
Qt can also be developed using a WYSIWYG style editor called
QtDesigner. If you go ahead and compile QtDesigner with the KDE
classes, you can use the KDE widgets for that style of editing as well.
Christian is right - Qt beats MFC hands down. MFC was a nightmare for
me to learn and I never got that far with it. Qt was a piece of cake,
the class interfaces kind of remind me of Java Swing. Although you may
not like Java, Swing is a breeze to write GUIs with.
More information about the Linux-audio-dev