U++ forum: Welcome to the forum

Search on this site

Search in forums

Home » Community » Newbie corner » FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST]

Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend

FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37386]

Sat, 29 September 2012 09:28

jheblack
Messages: 12
Registered: September 2012

Promising Member

Do any GUI veterans know what is up with FLTK -- FL Tool Kit? My paranoid, 'newbie' thought of that GUI api is that the stable version is about to get junked.

Basically, it's a life or death decision for me.

How does U++ compare to FLTK? FLTK is LGPL (OR WHATEVER) but can be statically linked since that is allowed there:
http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php

There is no U++ synopsis I see now for how U++ can compete with FLTK.

My background as a failed app developer comes from UN-deployed, but functional "models" with FOXToolkit/C++ and also Java/Swing with wxWidgets, Asio, and TBB thrown in, along with a 'ditched' and incomplete Qt GUI.

I have an incomplete ANDROID app too and "Training" there, but I digress.

Veterans -- What is better -- FLTK or U++???

It's not that I am lazy.

Report message to a moderator

Re: FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37389 is a reply to message #37386]

Sat, 29 September 2012 11:02

nlneilson
Messages: 644
Registered: January 2010
Location: U.S. California. Mojave &...

Contributor

Looking at the FLTK Screenshots on this link that can be done in U++ without anything else.
http://www.fltk.org/shots.php

Just run TheIDE and go into the examples and select any one and click Debug and execute.

Then click Build and Open output directory to see the .exe size.

U++ is better and you don't need FLTK.

U++ is much easier than you think it is!

"Basically, it's a life or death decision for me."
Getting paid for any app is a tough row to hoe.

[Updated on: Sat, 29 September 2012 11:45]

Report message to a moderator

Re: FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37390 is a reply to message #37389]

Sat, 29 September 2012 14:16

omari
Messages: 265
Registered: March 2010

Experienced Member

hello jheblack,

FLTK is a small GUI library, it is poor in components.

to understand the differance quickly, I suggest you to take a minuts and read the following links:

Upp GUI tutorial

Comparison Upp GUI library with some others:

Upp Widgets list

Grid tutorial

and more than GUI :

Upp SQL tutorial:

Web Application tutorial

cordially

omari

regards
omari.

Report message to a moderator

Re: FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37394 is a reply to message #37390]

Sat, 29 September 2012 15:23

nlneilson
Messages: 644
Registered: January 2010
Location: U.S. California. Mojave &...

Contributor

Thanks omari for the links.
I put a bookmark to your post so I can pull up the links later.

Report message to a moderator

Re: FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37396 is a reply to message #37394]

Sat, 29 September 2012 20:02

jheblack
Messages: 12
Registered: September 2012

Promising Member

Thanks for the links omari. The #1 bug on the bug page for the 'stable' version of FLTK is a scroll bar bug-- bug number #2682.

http://www.fltk.org/str.php?L2682

Are there bugs in the U++ GUI?

What is less buggy! FLTK versus U++ or U++ versus FLTK? I don't mind too much about putting up a disclaimer like

Quote:

[program/widget] is based in part on the work of the FLTK project (http://www.fltk.org)

from
http://www.fltk.org/COPYING.php.

Intel Threading Building Blocks
(http://threadingbuildingblocks.org/file.php?fid=82)
is not needed with either.

[Updated on: Sat, 29 September 2012 20:13]

Report message to a moderator

Re: FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37422 is a reply to message #37396]

Tue, 02 October 2012 10:44

mirek
Messages: 13975
Registered: November 2005

Ultimate Member

jheblack wrote on Sat, 29 September 2012 14:02

Are there bugs in the U++ GUI?

Of course there are. Any nontrivial piece of software has bugs.

Good news is that as far back as 11 years ago, I have had released some commercial apps using U++ (or what was then) which are still running today. Means those bugs do not prevent productivity. Plus, serious problems usually get fixed quite fast.

Mirek

[Updated on: Tue, 02 October 2012 10:44]

Report message to a moderator

Re: FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37435 is a reply to message #37422]

Thu, 04 October 2012 17:26

lectus
Messages: 329
Registered: September 2006
Location: Brazil

Senior Member

I've used both. Here's my opinion:

FLTK is highly portable and draws its own widgets (same look on all platforms), but it can look ugly (depending on users' taste).

FLTK is only a tiny GUI toolkit.

FLTK uses LGPL license with additional permission for static linking.

U++ is also quite portable but it tries to mimic the native look and feel (users will be immediately comfortable with your app).

U++ also has SQL and other good stuff.

U++ has BSD license, you can use it for whatever you want.

U++ executables are a little bigger than FLTK, but for most applications it's ok, because you get additional features.

U++ has powerful widgets like the array control.

I'd use U++ unless you have very specific reasons to not do so.

Report message to a moderator

Re: FLTK [FEATURE REQUEST] [message #37440 is a reply to message #37435]

Fri, 05 October 2012 10:07

BioBytes
Messages: 307
Registered: October 2008
Location: France

Senior Member

Hi all,

I completely agree with Lectus. I moved from wxWidgets library to U++ and for the moment I would not like to go back. As soon as you become more familiar with U++, development of GUI applications, including SQL and connection to most open database servers,is confortable and convenient for professional use.

I'd add that some features like GridCtrl, Topic and support of foreign languages are powerful tools. Razz

Have a good day

Biobytes

Report message to a moderator

Previous Topic:	Field for misc. control information?
Next Topic:	Need help at Linux (debian) install

Goto Forum:

-=] Back to Top [=-

[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [

] [

]

Current Time: Wed Apr 24 08:54:55 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.05276 seconds