Re: [gsl-dev] GTK+ v FLTK

[Sander Vesik <sander_traveling yahoo co uk>]

 --- Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> wrote: > Hi Mark,
> 
> On Fri, 2003-04-18 at 03:39, M. Evans wrote:
> > GTK+ is a fine toolkit, but isn't it still heavily based on X11
> > graphics, even in the native ports - i.e. aren't the native GTK+ ports
> > effectively ports of Xlib?
> 
> 	In a word - no. Gtk+ provides a graphics device abstraction just like
> any other toolkit; that runs fine, even well on Win32.
> 
> 	Gtk+ is IMHO a viable choice for OO.o, from a licensing perspective
> it's ideal; from a maintenance perspective it is actively maintained
> etc. How best to C++ wrap it is a slightly open question, there are
> several attempts: Inti, Gtk-- - I would imagine the demands of a
> UNO-ized API would introduce the need for a 3rd custom wrapping.
> 

I think it would end up being a third binding for a bunch of additional reasons
aswell. Last I looked inti was much more natural, but this could be due to bias as
to how bindings should work.

> 	The problems with using gtk+ are almost solely it's thread support;
> then again any existing toolkit (apart perhaps from the Java one & VCL)
> has very weak threading support.
> 

Using gtk+ impies using pango for text, which will mean getting them to support some
of the needed things like vertical writing. It could be this is not a major hurdle.

> 
> 	Regards,
> 
> 		Michael.
> 
> -- 
>  mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
> 


__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus
For a better Internet experience
http://www.yahoo.co.uk/btoffer