On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 17:25:53 -0500, Michael Ash <mike@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> In comp.sys.mac.programmer.help Paul Floyd <root@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:52:59 -0500, Doc O'Leary
>> <droleary.usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>> In article <471c675c$0$25917$ba4acef3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
>>> "Armel Asselin" <armelasselin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>> we gone the 3. way with wxWidgets (www.wxwidgets.org) which is free,
this is
>>>> definitely a correct way.
>>>
>>> For a very loose definition of "correct". I haven't seen a single
>>> wxWidget-based app that works the way a Mac user expects. Please
point
>>> me to yours by name, or any such app based on a ****table library that
>>> doesn't quite simply blow.
>>
>> IMO Qt meets your requirements.
>
> Would you happen to know of any downloadable Qt apps which look and
behave
> like native Mac apps? I would love to see one. I think it would be great
> if there were a viable cross-platform application framework, but so far
> every single application I've seen which was written in one completely
> failed to look or act the way I expected. If there are proper apps
written
> in Qt then perhaps my *****sment is wrong.
I'm perfectly happy with Google Earth and Opera, which to my knowledge
ae both Qt based apps.
>> It also has the huge advantage of not
>> being written in an obscure dialect of C that is virtually unknown in
>> the worlds of Windows and Unix.
>
> I never understood this argument. Objective-C takes virtually no time to
> learn when compared against the time it takes to learn an application
> framework. The fact that it's not the same language as the rest of your
> code should be irrelevant; your platform-specific code isn't going to
> compile on other platforms *anyway*, so what's the big deal if it's
> failing to compile because it's missing a bunch of libraries and
headers,
> or if it's failing to compile because it's missing a bunch of libraries
> and headers and is written in a language you don't happen to have a
> compiler for?
****ting issues between SUSv3 platforms aren't too serious. Windows poses
a lot more problems. However, Qt increasingly covers many non-GUI
aspects as well. I've been programming C since the late eighties and C++
since the early nineties, and I still consider that I have much to
learn. Is Objective-C really that trivial?
> If you could elaborate a bit on your reasons for thinking that
> Objective-C itself is a problem without resorting to FUD words like
> "obscure" and "virtually unknown", I would very much like to know what
> they are.
Well, in my career I've never met anyone that used Objective-C. This may
be due to the fact that I've always turned in engineering/telecomms
circles, which are dominated by C, C++ and Java running on Linux,
Solaris, Windows (and in the past, HP-UX, AIX, Irix and Tru64/DEC
unices). The simple lack of market present is already a pretty much
insurmountable barier to the Mac entering the EDA market. Any
expectation for code to be ****ted to Objective-C would be pure fantasy.
The simple lack of market present is already a pretty much
insurmountable barier to the Mac entering the EDA market. Any
expectation for code to be ****ted to Objective-C would be pure fantasy.
Outside of these circles, searching for "C++" on www.jobserve.com gives
me 3430 hits. Objective-C? 1. That's right, one hit. And the title for
the job offer? "C++ Mac Developer - Belgium - Cocoa Xcode OSX". (For
real job prospects, Java rules with 5968 hits).
Are you going to persist in arguing that Objective-C is not obscure and
virtually unknown?
> I would also like to point out that your use of "the world of UNIX" is
> extremely non-standard. Mac OS X is the most widely used UNIX* out
there,
> and it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it had more than 50% of the
> UNIX market. I would therefore argue that Objective-C is in fact
extremely
> *well* known in the UNIX world, due to the massive dominance of the Mac
in
> this world. Given all this, I assume you meant to say the non-Mac UNIX
> world.
From a Qt standpoint, the three groups of sup****ted platforms are
'win32', 'unix' and 'macx'. I'm aware of Mac OS X's unix
underpinnings (I've dabbled with FreeBSD since version 2.10).
A bientot
Paul
|
