[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Re: Re: Are configuration & UI better in 4.2?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg36909] Re: Re: Are configuration & UI better in 4.2?
• From: Steven <hattons at speakeasy.net>
• Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 03:31:29 -0400 (EDT)
• Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Gerald Roth wrote:

> hi,
> 
> On Monday 30 September 2002 09:02, you wrote:

> moving the frontend over to QT would have some neat side effects:
> consistent look & feel with the modern linux gui, themeability, source
> code compatibility on Win, Linux and Mac AFAIK, the possibility to use
> antialiased
> truetype fonts  as QT supports Xrender and Xft (looks great - see KDE3). i
> think all of those points are of value, but the most important might be
> source compatibility. ONE frontend for MOST (or ALL) platforms - sounds
> like a dream :-))

AFAIK, Mac OS is now BSD or something like that.  That makes it almost 
certain that it could support QT.  As I pointed out in another post, I can 
run the KDE on Windows XP.  I haven't been in the trenches with the Qt 
coders working on cross platform (Windows/Linux, etc.) development, but my 
impression is, it really is 'code once, run everywhere'.

This is one of the reasons I am such a Mozilla fan. Konqueror works quite 
well as a browser for Linux, and out-does Mozilla for file fetching and the 
like.  But Mozilla runs everywhere with more or less a uniform look and 
feel.  Yes, Mozilla is written with Gtk and not with Qt, but that just 
shows that WRI has options.  

I'm a KDE fan.  I've used the KDE since it was in alpha 0.4.  I remember 
back when it would compile in a few minutes on a pentium II.  Now it takes 
several hours on a P4. But if WRI wanted to go the Gtk route, they could 
achieve the same ends.

I've always hated motif.  The file chooser simply stinks. And that's just a 
start.

> 
> regards,
> gerald
>  

STH

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Re: Re: Are configuration & UI better in 4.2?
    • From: Gerald Roth <gerald.roth@aon.at>