Talk:WxWidgets Compared To Other Toolkits
Why don't you have comparison to VCF (http://vcf-online.org)?
- Possibly because not enough people know about it that are willing to contribute to this page. If you do know the finer details, feel free to post them. I haven't used the library, but on first glance, some points of interest are that VCF is under a BSD license, it has integration with the AntiGrain and FreeImage libraries, and it looks like documentation is not any better than wxWidgets with statements like "Currently you need to connect to cvs and pull down either the latest stable version or the latest development version to install on MacOS X systems." in the official manual while Mac source release files are on the SF.net project page. There seems to be a lot less platforms/compilers supported than wxWidgets (though they do have the Big 3(tm)). --Tierra 19:02, 2 May 2006 (PDT)
The MFC is documented as being "free for Windows"; don't you have to purchase a copy of MS VC++ to get access to the MFC?
By looking at info on JUCE, i found this page: http://wtl.wikispaces.com/OtherGuiLibraries fairly up to date. JUCE should be entered on this wikipage as well
Qt uses native widgets now
The bullet claiming that wxWidgets uses native widgets and qt doesn't should probably be removed. I would remove it myself, but I am not sure I completely understand the bullet. I may be wrong that Qt now matches it. It does draw with native widgets, though. From http://qt.nokia.com/products " Qt uses the native graphics APIs of each platform it supports, taking full advantage of system resources and ensuring that applications have native look and feel." Also, I apologize if I am incorrectly using the discussion page. I have never used one before.
- Qt uses the native graphics APIs to render native-looking borders, table headers, fonts, buttons, radio boxes, dropdowns, etc, but it still doesn't actually use the native controls themselves. There is a big difference here, and that is why it's noted here. By "feel" here, they really just mean the appearance, not the behavior. Controls in Qt may look native, but the operating system Qt applications are built on don't recognize the controls as what they are since it's still not actually the native control itself, and such built-in accessibility tools like screen readers don't always work correctly (or at all) with Qt applications. They've done this for a long time now, and this point isn't outdated. Btw, you are using the discussion page appropriately here, thanks. --Tierra 23:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
- Ok, as I said, I didn't really understand the difference. Thank you for the explanation. I was just making sure there was no misinformation. Good thing such knowledgeable individuals are here, or I might have spread the real misinformation further.
Revision 04:22, 26 March 2006 by 184.108.40.206 (→wxWidgets compared to Java)
The only reason to take out this information might be because it's outdated or the referenced links are dead (which is not the case). Please explain why these two bullets should be taken out. --- Tierra 12:14, 26 March 2006 (PST)
- I think the bullets should be combined into one bullet talking about speed differences. Link to http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ maybe, and mention that speed difference is hardly a main concern for most applications.
- I think SWT, Swing, and perhaps even AWT should be mentioned specifically, not just Java in general.
- I agree with this point. They are all very separate and deserve their own comparisons. Java is not a GUI toolkit. Just because a toolkit only supports one language does not mean we add a language.
- A benchmark comparing anything with java version 1.4.0 from februrary 2002 (current version is 1.6 from december 2006) is definitely outdated (220.127.116.11 04:46, 14 November 2007 (PST))