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
* 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk