Re: murgaLua

[Hakki Dogusan <dogusanh@...>]

Hi,

Grellier, Thierry wrote:
> Well I've looked at it a little and I would appreciate a separate
> package for the fltk put in luaforge, although making it is very easy to
> do from the code.
>
> When using the latest fltk version, I also noticed that generated code
> from fluid is slightly different, so I've modified a little the
> conversion script, with adding the following substitution rule:
>
>     # it now generates comments, they could be discarded, but...
>     sub(/\/\//, "--", $currentLine)
>
> I think this could be good for the community to have at least one GUI
> maintained consistently and extensively across time.

Just FYI, wxLua is maintained actively :)
We just don't see it in http://wxlua.sf.net web site...

> I was not convinced with IUP, also because of its slow pace maintenance
> always shifting. Well I understand resources are now limited, but then
> wouldn't it be more efficient not to maintain IUP and commit to a
> wrapper of an existing library like fltk or gtk,m that maybe suits to
> requirements of most lua users? 
>
> I guess this is not taboo question because
> http://www.tecgraf.puc-io.br/iup/ has a comparing section that states :
> "Why to still maintain IUP if today we have so many other popular
> toolkits?
> This is a question we always ask to ourselves before going on for
> another year."

As a developer, I'm always asking these questions -about technologies
I'm using/generating- to myself. Above sentence is similar, I think?

> So this is enough to introduce this as an unsecured choice... 
> Reading more about conclusion
> "Conclusions
> > From the selected toolkits using the defined approach we can eliminate
> some toolkits:
>
> The gray ones are not updated anymore or the development is very slow or
> needs a better organization.
>
> FOX has a great look but the license can be restrictive in some cases. 
>
> FLTK promises a new version with a better look, but until then it does
> not have a pretty good look. The FLTK documentation also does not help.
>
> GTK+ can be used as a replacement for Motif, but not as a "portable"
> toolkit since is was target for X-Windows. Nowadays GTK 2 is a great
> free C toolkit. But some predefined dialogs could be the native ones,
> like the File Selection.
>
> Qt has several license limitations, although is a very stable and
> powerful toolkit. Qt can be also used as a replacement for Motif.
>
> The "best" free solution that we choose would be wxWidgets because of
> the native controls and its portability. But since version 2, GTK+ is a
> very strong option because it is in C and had its visual improved.
>
> It is very hard to compare IUP with wxWidgets and Qt since they are much
> more than an Interface Toolkit. They are complete development platform
> that includes several secondary libraries. In IUP we focus only in
> Graphical User Interface."
>
> Besides wxWidget (maybe a bit huge...) Others are maintained per project
> base and with subset needed by the project so hardly mature.

I compiled wx & wxLua as a lua module in a single dll (~3Mb) size.
Still a little big in size. But I'm accepting it as that is the price of 
having a framework :)


--
Regards,
Hakki Dogusan