>> sigc++2 is just 100% pure C++ software engineering joy. sigc++ is
>> entirely independent of any graphical toolkit - you can use it
>> non-graphical applications as well.
>>
>
> Same with Qt. It doesn't have to be graphical.
i prefer libraries to small and self-contained whenever
possible. sigc++ is concerned with one thing and one thing only:
providing a robust, flexible type-safe callback (some call it
"signal/slot") mechanism for C++ programming. Qt is a great library,
but it has aspirations somewhat beyond that :)
> Having used both GTK and Qt I have to say that Qt is IMHO a much
>more polished and mature package. I have yet to run into anything that
>wasn't already anticipated by the Qt developers - QProcess, QPrinter,
>QSocket, QFtp, QHttp, QBrowser... The one thing that annoys me about
i completely agree with you. and my agreement is part of the reason
why i wouldn't want to use Qt. i don't believe that the list of
features you've just mentioned should be in a drawing toolkit - i'd
rather have a really great drawing toolkit *plus* another library (or
more than one) with support for these other cool (and useful)
things. your mileage may vary, of course.
i think that the decision to use Qt is a perfectly sensible one for a
lot of people - its just not the one i'd make.
--p
Received on Sun Mar 20 20:15:11 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Mar 20 2005 - 20:15:12 EET