[boost] Re: UI++ [was: GUI sublanguage;Re: GUI/GDI template library]

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-08-08 14:11:50

"Brock Peabody" <brock.peabody_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:004101c35db3$9956fd50$580a10ac_at_npci.com...
>
> > On Behalf Of Pascal Bleser
> > [...]
> > Do we need another wxWindows ?
> > It's C++, portable, free (LGPL), it has Python bindings, ... huge...
>
> I'm going to spend some time looking at it.  Maybe wxWindows
> could be bottom layer of our implementation.  It would give us
> more time to focus on the more interesting parts of our library.
>
> I'm afraid we may regret it later if the library is not all boost.  For
> one thing, I don't think the LGPL is compatible with boost license
> requirements.

I seem to vaguely recall from a license review we had some time
ago that the LGPL was not satisfactory.  Of course, my memory is
quite fuzzy.  I would argue starting from scratch for the same reason
I think we need a Boost.Sockets even though ACE exists.  Having
a large, wonderful, industrial strength programming library does
not preclude a smaller, elegant, "modern" library.  I don't think the
goal of Boost.GUI or whatever it will be called will be to replace
wxWindows or any of its friends, any more than Boost.Sockets
will replace ACE.  As Beman said, which library you choose will
depend on your requirements.  People who have industrial-strength
needs will probably choose one of the established libraries.
People who want a modern library and can sacrifice a lot of the
testing and maturity that exists in the current libraries would like
to see a Boost version.  I don't think there's anything wrong with
that.

That's not to say that wxWindows is not relevant to the library.  It
may be in the same way that ACE is relevant to the sockets
library.  It could be a point of inspiration for various concepts,
or an illustration of traps and pitfalls that can be encountered,
and some ways to avoid them.  One of the main features I like
about C++ is choice.  The language gives you lots of different
ways to do things.  This is because there is often not one best
way that fits every situation.  Having more libraries enhances
this feature, and is consistent with why it exists in the first place.

Dave