-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jared McIntyre Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 7:28 AM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: [boost] Re: GUI Library Proposal for a Proposal

...

Edward Diener wrote:

...

No !!!!! WxWidgets has almost nothing to do with modern C++. Let's

no go

...

there, or have anything to do with supporting any other GUI implementation.

Also, wxWindows is a huge library. If we were to introduce something in boost, I'd very much like it to be as small and light weight (as win32gui is supposed to be), not a collection of multi-megabyte dlls required, just to wrap win32 or what ever the underlying library is.

If people want more powerful components, they can be added afterwards, but the underlying library around core OS controls should be as small as possible.

Thanks

Russell

Honestly, I don't buy into the idea of cross platform GUI at all. I have lots of reasons born out of experience with them that I won't get into here, but in general, I find they are nice for the developer, but poor for the user. I would much rather write my backend code in a cross-platform language, and hook it up to a GUI designed for each platform I support. That is why, at first glance anyway, I like the idea behind the Lit Window design. Most of the backend is GUI neutral, allowing you to do more work in your cross-platform code. In theory, this could be used to simplify the platform specific GUI code that needs to be written. I'd much rather see C++ go a route of making it easier to develop for different GUI libraries than to actually develop one of its own (since I don't think it would get much use anyway).

JJared McIntyre _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

[Brian Braatz] " I'd much rather

see C++ go a route of making it easier to develop for different GUI libraries than to actually develop one of its own (since I don't think it would get much use anyway)."

Yes, and that is what my original mail that started this thread suggested :) Where it gets confusing to talk about, is that by doing that, you end up doing a "little bit" of the work that "already exists" elsewhere. That is ok.