Free(real Free) GUI toolkits

[Reinder Verlinde]

Seems like it works pretty well. As a warning, it runs under apple's
X11.

"it works pretty well", combined with "it runs under apple's X11" really
means that it is not a Mac application at all, and Mac users will in all
likelihood not find it a suitable solution.

Reinder

 

[Rando Christensen]

"it works pretty well", combined with "it runs under apple's X11" really
means that it is not a Mac application at all, and Mac users will in all
likelihood not find it a suitable solution.

Reinder

You're probably right; but then again, there aren't ANY toolkits that do
any better than that for cross-platform with OSX. wxwidgets technically
works on OSX, but it's kind of a pain. I got it to compile once, but
then I couldn't get python's wxPython to work with it and gave up. (I
was trying to get the bittorrent wxPython stuff working.)

Any others that exist (Including the local ruby favorite fox) only work
under X11 anyway.

(I believe QT is actually an exception to this, and they now provide a
fully native OSX Framework. Are there ruby bindings for QT?)

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Rando,


RC> You're probably right; but then again, there aren't ANY toolkits that do
RC> any better than that for cross-platform with OSX. wxwidgets technically
RC> works on OSX, but it's kind of a pain. I got it to compile once, but
RC> then I couldn't get python's wxPython to work with it and gave up. (I
RC> was trying to get the bittorrent wxPython stuff working.)

RC> Any others that exist (Including the local ruby favorite fox) only work
RC> under X11 anyway.

RC> (I believe QT is actually an exception to this, and they now provide a
RC> fully native OSX Framework. Are there ruby bindings for QT?)

The problem is different, it's not only an API question.

You simply can't generate a cross-platform GUI intensive application.
Point. Thats it. Thats what you must accept. It is possible with
Windows <-> Linux just because the Linux toolkits look much like the
windows Styleguide and where born more or less as with windows in
mind.

But it wasn't possible to port it to BeOS and it's not possible to port
it to Mac. I can only give you the recommonendation to download the
Mac Human Application Interface Guidelines.
Read it carefully and you see that you need to make design
changes for Apple and Windows. MS has accepted this and thats why MSOffice
and MSExplorer don't share the same codebase (at least for a very very
significant part of code lines).

Even QT does not much more then provide Aqua looking look. But even with QT
it's not possible to write a "write once, compile everywhere"
application. You need a specail Apple GUI abstraction layer that gives
you things like Proxy Icons, different modal window logic, menubars
without main windows etc.

 

[Rando Christensen]

The problem is different, it's not only an API question.

You simply can't generate a cross-platform GUI intensive application.
Point. Thats it. Thats what you must accept. It is possible with
Windows <-> Linux just because the Linux toolkits look much like the
windows Styleguide and where born more or less as with windows in
mind.

I'm quite familiar with apple's HIG and the differences between it and
the way applications look and feel in Linux and Windows. However, I
think you're a bit off in calling it impossible. It would require a
toolkit that made you know and account for the quirks of different
operating systems, but it's far from impossible.

However, speaking on a more practical level, A lot of people would just
be happy with being able to write code that looks decent and doesn't
require too much work to set up on any individual target platform.

It's possible. Hell, hop on a mac and download the neat Gimp package
that exists. Yes, it's GTK, and yes, it even requires X11 to be
installed. However, it comes in an OSX .app bundle, comes pre-packaged
with it's own copy of gtk+ in there with it's own theme, and even knows
how to launch X11 on it's own when it launches. It's nowhere close to
fully native, but it's good enough not to scare people away.

It'd be a bit of work to write a toolkit that could create something
like that, either through using native widgets or whatever, but it is
possible, and it's something I wish we'd see come up.

 

[David Ross]

"it works pretty well", combined with "it runs under
apple's X11" really
means that it is not a Mac application at all, and
Mac users will in all
likelihood not find it a suitable solution.

Reinder

Yes, I was told by ThreeeDayMonk. He said it was as
fast as an application using Cocoa. I might just have
to get access and add in the corect code to make it
use cocoa. I like it better than X11. Should be
fairly easy doing it blind because I have many books
on cocoa. Also apple has great amounts of free
documentation. --David Ross




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 

[David Ross]

I'm quite familiar with apple's HIG and the
differences between it and
the way applications look and feel in Linux and
Windows. However, I
think you're a bit off in calling it impossible. It
would require a
toolkit that made you know and account for the
quirks of different
operating systems, but it's far from impossible.

It is not impossible. It just takes a good
knowledgable programmer. Thats all. Other people don't
know what they are talking about. Period.

However, speaking on a more practical level, A lot
of people would just
be happy with being able to write code that looks
decent and doesn't
require too much work to set up on any individual
target platform.


It's possible. Hell, hop on a mac and download the
neat Gimp package
that exists. Yes, it's GTK, and yes, it even
requires X11 to be
installed. However, it comes in an OSX .app bundle,
comes pre-packaged
with it's own copy of gtk+ in there with it's own
theme, and even knows
how to launch X11 on it's own when it launches. It's
nowhere close to
fully native, but it's good enough not to scare
people away.

Never tried Gimp on Mac yet. I'm hooked on photoshop

It'd be a bit of work to write a toolkit that could
create something
like that, either through using native widgets or
whatever, but it is
possible, and it's something I wish we'd see come
up.

You could always help port WideStudio code. Just
because its MIT licensed and doesnt have strings
attached. 8)

low-level programming is something I find easy. I can
even program well in Xlib without doing the crazy
number others perform. (*pulling thier hair out,
yelling at big code, etc)

--David Ross
(drossruby)(at)(yahoo.com)



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 

[David Ross]

(I believe QT is actually an exception to this, and

they now provide a
fully native OSX Framework. Are there ruby bindings
for QT?)

Yes, Thank you to Lypanov.
http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/qtruby/
This is an updated qtruby binding. It is very good. It
has the signal and slots system handled. Unfortunately
Qt is GPL'ed. So, I won't be using it unless there is
a OpenSource app I am hacking on.

--David Ross




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Rando,


RC> I'm quite familiar with apple's HIG and the differences between it and
RC> the way applications look and feel in Linux and Windows. However, I
RC> think you're a bit off in calling it impossible. It would require a
RC> toolkit that made you know and account for the quirks of different
RC> operating systems, but it's far from impossible.

Right it would be possible to support this at least on a specialiased
application level (in a huge program the GUI Toolkit is only a very
minor part of the program) but very hard to do so in general. And
its not a write once schema which is what most programmers expect today.

RC> However, speaking on a more practical level, A lot of people would just
RC> be happy with being able to write code that looks decent and doesn't
RC> require too much work to set up on any individual target platform.

RC> It's possible. Hell, hop on a mac and download the neat Gimp package
RC> that exists. Yes, it's GTK, and yes, it even requires X11 to be
RC> installed. However, it comes in an OSX .app bundle, comes pre-packaged
RC> with it's own copy of gtk+ in there with it's own theme, and even knows
RC> how to launch X11 on it's own when it launches. It's nowhere close to
RC> fully native, but it's good enough not to scare people away.

But this is not a task for the toolkit. This is up to you as an
individuell developer. Everybody can create an .app bundle that works
good and installs easily even with FOX.

You just gave me a task for the next week. I will look at the setup
code of GIMP.

RC> It'd be a bit of work to write a toolkit that could create something
RC> like that, either through using native widgets or whatever, but it is
RC> possible, and it's something I wish we'd see come up.

Yes. I just spend 50% of my time last week to examine how much work
needs to be done to port my Arachno products to Aqua/Carbon. I already
have an abstraction layer above FOX but i found it very hard
(about 6 month full time) to do this and it would require a lot of
refactoring of existing code. It may not be so difficult if a person
starts a project and designs the application from scratch to fit the goal
of runnable on Unix/Windows/Apple.

And as i said before, at the moment i don't think that a general
purpose toolkit is the way to go, at least for larger applications.

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello David,
DR> Yes, Thank you to Lypanov.
DR> http://raa.ruby-lang.org/project/qtruby/
DR> This is an updated qtruby binding. It is very good. It
DR> has the signal and slots system handled. Unfortunately
DR> Qt is GPL'ed. So, I won't be using it unless there is
DR> a OpenSource app I am hacking on.

You know that Qt is also available with a commerical license.

And i must say i don't understand your attitude, you are fighting
against other commercial projects but always tell us that you write
your own commerical programs/widgets. Do you really think that this
fits together.

 

[David Ross]

You know that Qt is also available with a commerical
license.

Yes Lothar, I am *very* aware. Have been for years.
The licenses cost 1500USD each platform, discounts if
you buy more than one at a time. I am very good at Qt
programming. Unfortunately, I have also found that I
can do just as much by contributing a bit of my time
to reengineer free toolkits like wide studio.

And i must say i don't understand your attitude, you
are fighting
against other commercial projects but always tell us
that you write
your own commerical programs/widgets. Do you really
think that this
fits together.

yes, the reason for it is that is becuase there are
infinite possibilities of "me"


--David




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello Jan,

JS> FireFox and Thunderbird are pretty damn good. There are differences
JS> ofcourse to make it more mac-like. Shortcuts using symbols, based on
JS> command instead of control or alt. Changed menu structure (preferences
JS> and quit under the application menu, instead of file and edit). The
JS> usage of sheets instead of modal dialogs. Things could be better, but
JS> none would require a massive rewrite, or needs the use of another
JS> toolkit. So, yes, you need different versions for mac/linux/win to make
JS> a decent gui app, but the differences aren't that major that you need to
JS> rewrite your entire application.

Yes they are pretty good. But this is exactly what i said. For example
you can find in the "mozilla/widget/src/mac" folder 85 files with 961
KB source code which is most of the mac GUI abstraction layer. I know that some
other programs (Komodo for example) uses the Mozilla framework, but it is
still developed around the needs of the Browser application. If they need
new features they will change the toolkit and they will do it at the
same time for each toolkit. This is different from the idea
of porting from one system to another with the help of a general
purpose toolkit and without #ifdef clauses.

JS> Allot of Java apps also integrate nicely. (for example Jedit). You need
JS> changes, you need to follow the mac hig to give a nice experience, but
JS> you don't need to rewrite it in either cocoa/carbon. It is easier to get
JS> things right if you use cocoa instead of something else, but it is not
JS> absolutely necessary for a nicely integrated mac application.

Sure you can do quite well. But thats not the point i'm talking about.
I talking about apps here that will have a chance to get accept at

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APP...b71EuWEVpK/0.0.9.1.0.6.13.0.4.1.3.0.7.0.1.1.0

This is not easy because recommended software must confirm to the interface
guideslines (at least a few years ago they where very strict at this
point) - and of course you must pay a lot of money.

 

[Florian Gross]

yes, the reason for it is that is becuase there are infinite
possibilities of "me"

Which means that you're changing your opinion as fitting? You're
preaching water and drinking wine?

Regards,
Florian Gross

 

[Florian Gross]

"Truth is important, knock down the trolls on thier ass Only good
people deserve respect"

You know. you are the biggest troll I have ever seen on the mailing
list. Really, stop. I'm not kidding. It has all you need. Its free as
well, no strings attached. I don't know what the hell your problem
is, but stop. Below is my sample app I constructed in 15 minutes
after learning the interface. it is simple to create than others. It
is very flexible as well. text looks great widgets work great, and it
looks the same way on windows. I tried it, works fine. THanks now
stfu lothar_troll. Send patches Send patches. Send patches send
patches or shut up. You are trolling. Stop not really.

You've done personal flames like this before and in the
public. It damages the reputation of the Ruby community and really
doesn't contribute anything. I'd prefer you staying neutral, polite and
objective (which doesn't mean that you're not allowed to have your own
opinion).

If you think that I'm trying to troll you and want to attack me because
of it, then please do so privately.

If you want to discuss politely, then do so here.

Regards,
Florian Gross

 

[Mark Hubbart]

FireFox and Thunderbird are pretty damn good. There are differences
ofcourse to make it more mac-like. Shortcuts using symbols, based on
command instead of control or alt. Changed menu structure (preferences
and quit under the application menu, instead of file and edit). The
usage of sheets instead of modal dialogs. Things could be better, but
none would require a massive rewrite, or needs the use of another
toolkit. So, yes, you need different versions for mac/linux/win to
make a decent gui app, but the differences aren't that major that you
need to rewrite your entire application.

I think I speak for more users than myself when I say that FireFox and
Thunderbird are *not* Mac apps. Yes, they do pretty good, but they need
to go a a bit further before they will be able to compete with the
other mac web browsers, IMHO. My main gripe is that, even after the
major changes they made to make it more mac-like, they still behave
strangely. There a only a couple places left where there are major
deviations from the usual mac app, but there are many items that behave
almost, but not quite, like what you would expect. I think that this
is especially a problem for more advanced users, since they are more
likely to notice the differences.

Allot of Java apps also integrate nicely. (for example Jedit). You
need changes, you need to follow the mac hig to give a nice
experience, but you don't need to rewrite it in either cocoa/carbon.
It is easier to get things right if you use cocoa instead of something
else, but it is not absolutely necessary for a nicely integrated mac
application.

Apple has been working to take java apps more and more towards being
first class applications on macosx. With the ObjC <=> Java bridge, you
can use all the cocoa classes in java apps, making porting a java
program to cocoa rather simple. Also, they did a fairly good job of
making the java Aqua theme fit in well.

cheers,
Mark

 

[Nicholas Van Weerdenburg]

I've sortof come to view my OS X box as a Mac/Java/X11/Linux(Fink
ports) box, so I'm fine with GUI variations. I'm afraid I hardly notice
them anymore.

I use the following on both Windows and OS X:
Freeride Ruby Editor (X11)
Mozilla Thunderbird
Mozilla Firefox
JEdit (Java)
IntelliJ IDEA (Java)

And I have no complaints. On the other hand, OpenOffice via X11 on OS X
is dissapointing, so I can see mainstream apps needing the tighter Mac
compliance.

Nick

 

[David Ross]

And i must say i don't understand your attitude,
you are fighting

yes, the reason for it is that is becuase there are infinite
possibilities of "me"

Which means that you're changing your opinion as
fitting? You're
preaching water and drinking wine?

I don't know exactly know what I wrote means now :/ I
thought it made sense. No, what you replied is not
what it was supposed to mean.

really.

You've done personal flames like this before and in
the
public. It damages the reputation of the Ruby
community and really
doesn't contribute anything. I'd prefer you staying
neutral, polite and
objective (which doesn't mean that you're not
allowed to have your own
opinion).

Yes. Well, it is not my fault people have to post lies
about other software and assume something is too
diificult when it is not in either case. Lies is what
makes people not want to use other software. Also, it
seems to me that l-troll uses it as a guerilla
business tatics to deal out low blows. He has no valid
statement on other IDEs since he is developing his
own, of course his will seem better to him(besides the
money).

If you think that I'm trying to troll you and want
to attack me because
of it, then please do so privately.

No, I do not. I would be glad to explain in email or
irc about what it is about.

If you want to discuss politely, then do so here.

Regards,
Florian Gross

--David Ross




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

 

[Martin DeMello]

statement on other IDEs since he is developing his
own, of course his will seem better to him(besides the
money).

Just to inject a measure of sanity into this, isn't Lothar developing
his IDE in Eiffel? I don't see how that would bias his opinion of a ruby
toolkit.

martin

 

[Rando Christensen]

I've sortof come to view my OS X box as a Mac/Java/X11/Linux(Fink
ports) box, so I'm fine with GUI variations. I'm afraid I hardly notice
them anymore.

A lot of mac users feel this way, myself included. Most of them,
however, are those who came to OSX from linux or bsd. Many hardcore mac
junkies are afraid of X11.

Though it is worth noting that I do tend to prefer a native cocoa
application over an X11 port when I have the choice.

 

[Rando Christensen]

I think I speak for more users than myself when I say that FireFox and
Thunderbird are *not* Mac apps. Yes, they do pretty good, but they need
to go a a bit further before they will be able to compete with the
other mac web browsers, IMHO. My main gripe is that, even after the
major changes they made to make it more mac-like, they still behave
strangely. There a only a couple places left where there are major
deviations from the usual mac app, but there are many items that behave
almost, but not quite, like what you would expect. I think that this is
especially a problem for more advanced users, since they are more likely
to notice the differences.

Honestly, if you ask me, the biggest problem with firefox/thunderbird is
speed. The interfaces for firefox and thunderbird are pretty sluggish,
and scrolling under firefox has a really strange feel to it, like it's
really really lagged.

However, the original point was valid. Mozilla's XUL interface has come
a long way, and while it still needs a ton of optimization and a few
more behavioral tweaks on OSX, it really has worked out quite well
otherwise as a cross-platform GUI toolkit. It has a native feel on linux
and windows and a very close to native feel on OSX.

Unfortunately, I don't think it's quite able to be used as a standalone
gui toolkit (Though, it could very well be. After all, thunderbird does
use it), but I really haven't done much reading on the subject.

 

[Lothar Scholz]

Hello David,


DR> Yes. Well, it is not my fault people have to post lies
DR> about other software and assume something is too
DR> diificult when it is not in either case. Lies is what
DR> makes people not want to use other software. Also, it
DR> seems to me that l-troll uses it as a guerilla
DR> business tatics to deal out low blows. He has no valid
DR> statement on other IDEs since he is developing his
DR> own, of course his will seem better to him(besides the
DR> money).

Bullshit. You should learn to read and write more carefull.
I just responded twice. And you both time started your fucking troll
thread.

One was your request for comment about the WideStudio GUI toolkit.
I told you my impression that i don't like the GUI toolkit for a
number of reasons i mentionend
(you never replied about the problems, just "send patches").
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.lang.ruby&start=75
I didn't write any sentence about the IDE, just one about the GUI
Builder which i don't like and don't find very comfortable to work.

The other posting was a reply to your message about KDevelop in the
Editor Thread:
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=...de&lr=&ie=UTF-8&group=comp.lang.ruby&start=75
Where you recommended KDevelop as a good ruby editor and mentioning
that it supports Code completition and other things that are working
only with C++. I said that KDevelop is a very bad recommendation for
someone asking for a ruby editor. This was the point. You simple
didn't understand the posting.

Yes i will still post critical statements about software and
programming here.

Newsgroups are for discussion: We can stop discussing things and
just come together smoke some dope and tell each other how wonderful
the world is.