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