Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #121433 > unrolled thread

Question about wxWidgets library

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++

Contents

  Question about wxWidgets library "Maciek" <root@none.pl> - 2025-01-14 00:44 +0100
    Re: Question about wxWidgets library Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2025-01-14 14:10 +0200
      Re: Question about wxWidgets library red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2025-01-14 09:26 -0800
        Re: Question about wxWidgets library Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-01-14 13:14 -0500
        Re: Question about wxWidgets library David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-01-14 20:22 +0100
    Re: Question about wxWidgets library legalize+jeeves@mail.xmission.com (Richard) - 2025-01-23 18:34 +0000
    Re: Question about wxWidgets library Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> - 2025-01-25 16:44 -0600

#121433 — Question about wxWidgets library

Hi. Question about wxWidgets - it is good library for programming ? Im looking good portable library "not only" for user interface. Important is also flexibility for modifications. Thanks for answer.

--
Maciek

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#121434

On 14.01.2025 01:44, Maciek wrote:
> Hi. Question about wxWidgets - it is good library for programming ? Im looking good portable library "not only" for user interface. Important is also flexibility for modifications. Thanks for answer.

wxWidgets shows some heritance roots from MFC, but is somewhat more sane 
and less quirky. I have used it for some simple GUI tools and it was not 
too hard to get it working, at least not compared to MFC frustrations.

 From what I have heard, Qt ought to be better and a "first choice", but 
because of license incompatibilities we have not been able to actually 
try it.

In general, do not hope to find a single library which does everything 
you need. The C++ standard library provides many things, but for actual 
work one still needs other libraries. Our main software package depends 
on 56 third-party libraries, for example. Getting them all compilable 
and somewhat updated is like herding a really wild bunch of cats.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121437

On 1/14/2025 4:10 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:

>  From what I have heard, Qt ought to be better and a "first choice", but 
> because of license incompatibilities we have not been able to actually 
> try it.
> 

Didn't it get relicensed under LGPL?

https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121440

On 1/14/25 12:26 PM, red floyd wrote:
> On 1/14/2025 4:10 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:
> 
>>  From what I have heard, Qt ought to be better and a "first choice", 
>> but because of license incompatibilities we have not been able to 
>> actually try it.
>>
> 
> Didn't it get relicensed under LGPL?
> 
> https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html
> 
> 

Just because it's under LGPL doesn't mean there aren't still licensing 
conflicts. I've been through this already. The FSF can kiss my ass.

-- 
Phillip
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121441

On 14/01/2025 18:26, red floyd wrote:
> On 1/14/2025 4:10 AM, Paavo Helde wrote:
> 
>>  From what I have heard, Qt ought to be better and a "first choice", 
>> but because of license incompatibilities we have not been able to 
>> actually try it.
>>
> 
> Didn't it get relicensed under LGPL?
> 
> https://doc.qt.io/qt-6/licensing.html
> 

I don't know if anything has changed recently, but QT has always (or at 
least for a very long time) had significant parts available under a dual 
license - LGPL or commercial at high cost.  However, LGPL is not a 
usable license for many people - you can't use it along with a 
statically linked executable, for example.  And there are lots of other 
parts of QT that could be of interest that are not under the LGPL - at 
least, that was the case last time I looked.

(It's their code, so they pick the license - I'm not making any 
judgement about it here.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121462

[Please do not mail me a copy of your followup]

"Maciek" <root@none.pl> spake the secret code
<G5kPOZIQZPCDEDqFwI@none.pl> thusly:

>Hi. Question about wxWidgets - it is good library for programming ? Im
>looking good portable library "not only" for user interface. Important
>is also flexibility for modifications. Thanks for answer.

wxWidgets is really a GUI library with some other utility type things
included.

If you're just trying to write portable programs without a GUI, I
would just use the standard C++ library and fill in gaps with
libraries from vcpkg like boost.

If you're trying to write portable GUI applications, then I would
recommend wxWidgets over Qt unless there is something in Qt that you
absolutely need.  Why?  Because Qt programs are pretty bloaty due to
the way Qt implements things and it's gotten worse over time.
wxWidgets aims to be the thinnest possible portable layer over top of
the native GUI in your platform.
-- 
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book <http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
            The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals-wiki.org>
     The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
  Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121469

On 1/13/2025 5:44 PM, Maciek wrote:
> Hi. Question about wxWidgets - it is good library for programming ? Im looking good portable library "not only" for user interface. Important is also flexibility for modifications. Thanks for answer.
> 
> --
> Maciek

So, have you made a decision ?

I have been looking at wxWidgets also for several years for moving off 
MFC.  I keep getting delayed by customer issues, the people with the money.

Lynn

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++

csiph-web