demian at knowhow-online.com.br
Thu Nov 13 13:29:10 CET 2003
Let me see if I understand your concern...
>>wxWindows is a good library/framework indeed. But why do we need a
>>pascal interface to it ? It adds too many layers to the whole system.
>>eg: to create a button => pascal-layer->wxWindows->gtk+/motif/win32->window system window.
How does LCL work- doesn't it abstract the widget set as well?
LCL Button -> LCL Abstraction -> Widget Set -> Windows System
Now, correct me if I am wrong- what is *exactly* the difference? My
point of view is that by developing a wxWindows GUI, Lazarus would
benefit from a mature and well organized abstraction layer- that is
it. I know that I could build a wxLCL and offer it to the community
sometime in the future. I just wanted to know why build yet another
Window System abstraction layer when there is good, mature, stable,
and fast options around. Many Python users, for instance, are moving
away from their older GUI libraries/toolkits to wxPython.
>>Do we really need these layers ? (wrapper wrapping a wrapper wrapping a
>>OTOH, what we really need is an emulating toolkit atop the native window
>>system (a la FLTK).
Isn't FLTK something just like wxWindows? I mean, FLTK is just a toolkit
and one would expect it to be much less complex than wxWindows, which is
a full GUI framework. In the end, both come down to API calls so on the
developer's point of view they'd be the same on a coding perspective...
> Or the foundation classes of Lazarus, LCL.
The discussion is exactly about how LCL supports native widget sets.
More information about the fpc-pascal