Re: [boost] GUI library: vapourware?

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-09-29 08:20:38

Bjørn Roald wrote:
>Andy Little said:
> > "Vladimir Prus" <ghost_at_[hidden]> wrote
> >
> >> Failing that, anybody has any killer idea for GUI development that
> >> warrants
> >> new library? Why don't add Qt to the C++ standard?
> >
> > http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/pricing.html
>
>No doubt, TrollTech has to make the money they deserve some way.  They
>also give the stuff away to everybody that can accept GPL like terms.
>
>What I wonder is if anybody with contacts in the standard process and/or
>to the compiler vendors have ever considered Vladimirs suggestion, and
>approached the Trolls about it?  Maybe there is a business case in that
>for TrollTech.  They could be the prime provider of a larger part of the
>standard library to a number of compilers.

This would be the right way to go about producing a standard GUI library. As 
Volodya has noted, writing a GUI library suffers from several problems:
*  the task is monumentally large;
*  everyone has a different idea on what should go into the library (just 
see the native vs generic look brought up in this round of GUI library 
discussions!);
*  the library would vastly increase the size of Boost (if Boost would be 
used to host the GUI).

>I believe the main problem is that some of the compiler vendors have their
>own none-portable GUI libraries - are they willing to give these up, or
>make them portable and give them away?  That is why this would not work -
>so don't blame the pricing of commercial licenses of Qt.

Having Qt standardised does not mean that people will stop using wxWidgets, 
WTL, MFC or another GUI library, just like having std::basic_string<> hasn't 
stopped ATL/MFC, wx and others providing their own string classes.

- Reece