On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:51:10 -0700, Sebastian Redl wrote:
On Sep 7, 2010, at 5:40 AM, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 09:47:03 +0200, Yakov Galka wrote:
On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 02:16, Gwenio <urulokiurae@gmail.com> wrote:
I repeat that I am focusing on the low-level components because I do not want the discussion to get stuck on what appears to be a very difficult subject. Therefore I would like discussion of higher level parts to be limited to what would be required to implement them.
Then *please*, explain how your library will differ from e.g. gtkmm?
link: http://www.gtkmm.org/en/
I hope that, for starters, the end-result would look nothing like that produced by gtkmm. GTK-based GUIs on Windows just look 'wrong'.
The visual appearance of programs has very little to do with library design. Qt programs look great IMO, but they don't use any native widgets even on Windows. They just have a very faithful native l&f. But you can style them differently even on Windows.
On Linux I would say that GTK and QT *are* the native widgets for their respective desktop environments, Gnome and KDE. Widgets are native to a desktop environment rather than an OS and it's only becuase Windows just has one environment that people talk about native Windows widgets.
So the question is perfectly valid. IMO it doesn't make any sense to design low-level components if you don't have a high-level design.
The problem is that these are two completely separate things. Any high-level framework will be build on top of low-level widgets so at some point these will need wrapping in a portable manner so at some point this job has to be done anyway. Exposing these as a boost library in its own right means we don't force users to use the high-level concepts if they prefer not to or prefer to roll their own. Alex -- Easy SFTP for Windows Explorer (http://www.swish-sftp.org)