-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Alle 15:03, mercoledì 25 giugno 2003, Monaghan, John ha scritto:
I think the problem with the replies is that they are all subjective (which is natural).
Whilst I don't have any problems with QT, here is what I would say is the "other side" to give a balanced view.
1. I have to say that I emailed Julian Smart, the creator of wxwindows a few times (I too had lots of questions) and was very impressed with the replies; disregarding technical merit for the moment, I would recommend wxwindows politically.
Politics is not my interest:)
2. I know you said "apart from the licence", but I also found this to be an important factor. Basically, if you want to create free software (libre) and distribute it, then you can. However if you want to create commercial software, you can with wxwindows but can't with QT unless you buy the full product (expensive).
I am going to write a GPL program, the problem comes out with the windows version. I would not like going on asking someone to please compile my stuff with his expensive qt.
3. I personally think (subjective!) that the C++ implementation is cleaner in wxwindows and doesn't need things such as MOC. It also promises to be as platform independant as possible.
I think that a lot of people are enthusiastic about QT because it is used by the "darling" crowd for KDE. I have no objections with KDE (I use it about 50% of the time) or QT, but like I said earlier we need to stay as objective as we can.
The best advantage with QT is that qtdesigner is nicer than wxdesigner. But I can survive that, I think I will go with wxwindows. Praise -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE++aY36v3ZTabyE8kRAjMIAJ9nOuGQdsTL77Eg4oOWGXoIHE+NEgCfVIT9 /JUTVqc5O8apflNhLpPgf6g= =WusT -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----