Subject: [OT] FLTK; was [linux-audio-dev] What do we need now ?
From: Maarten de Boer (mdeboer_AT_iua.upf.es)
Date: ti heinä 27 1999 - 12:58:06 EDT
On Tue, 27 Jul 1999, reactor/CTPmedia wrote:
> >% PS: it is not the first time I do this, but I would like to urge people to
> >% use FLTK for the GUI of audio software. Fast, small, no bloat.
>
> i think we should prefer GTK+ instead, because it's more standard.
> every linux distribution has a GTK+ package.
Yes, but incompatibility issues are very common. FLTK can be used
statically and doesn't make your app much bigger.
> you're right, FLTK is fast, cool, but GTK+ looks prettier (and that's
> an important factor if we want to get Windozers away from their Windozes)
The look of FLTK is very customizable, and it comes closer to GTK+ and
Windows look than to Motif.
> or we could use both. QT could be a good choice too (besides i don't like
> it :))). just look at GreenBox, a nice drummachine made with QT. it has
> real knobs like Rebirth. i don't know if we could make it with GTK+ too,
> but i think so, and then the world would be ours. (unfortunately FLTK's
> knobs are ugly... and today's "music" is mostly about knob-tweaking and
> slider-sliding :))
FLTK's slider is fine though. Smooth hightech looking knobs do not belong
in the standard widget set of a GUI toolkit. If you need one, write one,
which is really little work with fltk, because it's C++.
> and don't forget, we are competing with COMMERCIAL software, for which
> people get lots of money (even though Radium cracks all of them), so
> we have to bring QUALiTY in our stuff, or noone will take us seriously.
I think for quality 'looks' are not the mean issue. Useability is at least
as important.
> we need easy-compiling, good-looking, good-sounding, stable stuff, with
> functions that commercial stuff don't have.
Yes!
Maarten
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : pe maalis 10 2000 - 07:25:52 EST