Talk:Fox toolkit

message: "wxWidgets promotes the use of native widgets on each supported platform" needs expansion - I presume it is to do with Fox's "own implementation from the ground up rather than just use native widgets" philosophy, and so considers wxWidgets to have inconsistent look across different platforms..? "FOX differentiates itself in the following way" - this does not in itself provide contrast. Wootery 17:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: wxWidgets

message: Please remove the text about available Python and Eiffel bindings. They do not exist anymore. There is no Eiffel compiler anymore that compiles the Eiffel bindings and you can't download a matching version of the FOX library that works with FXPython out of the box. Both bindings are totally unmaintained and fixed for 8 and 5 years and so promoting them is just a lie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.142.116.60 (talk) 12:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete Bindings

message: I've deleted the statement that development of Tk has stalled and that it is therefore missing many modern widgets. This isn't true. Tk is under active development, as can easily be seen by reading the Wiki (http://wiki.tcl.tk) and from the new versions that have been released.
Furthermore, some Tk widgets, in particular the canvas and text widgets, are probably more advanced than their counterparts in other toolkits. A better comparison would list the widgets that FOX provides that are lacking in Tk.Bill 07:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tk

message: Hi, I am not really sure about the format for the "Talk" feature, so what I put here may not be per the standard, for which I apologize ahead of time!  I am interested in the reason why GTK+ is not considered to be a true cross-platform solution?  An explanation will be much appreciated, as I am contemplating using wxWidgets for a solution, which in turn is based on GTK+ on Linux.  I put in a "citation needed" note next to the sentence in the text to attract the original author's attention.  Many thanks - Todd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddintr (talk • contribs) 19:24, 2 May 2006
:Hi. I have slightly reformatted your comments to answer your question about the format of the Talk pages :-) (you can add four tildes like this: ~~~~ to add a signature to your posts). Regarding the question of "cross-platformness", I seem to recall that other toolkits (e.g., Qt) have been developed to be cross-platform from the beginning, while GTK+ was only ported afterwards. I guess this affected the overall architecture, as GTK+ was not designed having in mind this subsequent porting. I'm not so sure this is actually correct at all, however. - Liberatore(T) 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GTK+ a true cross-platform?

message: This one:
*GTK+ has been ported to Windows, but it is not genuinely cross-platform.
Because it is plainly false. It makes no difference whether a program was cross-platform from inception or it became later. The fact is that GTK+ IS cross-platform, end of discussion. The original statement was just plain wrong, just to strengthen the image of the FOX toolkit. I bet that the last bullet about FLTK is also suspect, but I'm not familiar enough with FLTK to have an opinion. nuclear 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I seem to recall that there are differences (efficiency, maybe?), but I am not sure. I'd leave that bullet out until someone explains what this difference implies. (Liberatore, 2006). 13:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever the original poster had in mind, there are no differences, I've used GTK+ for my programs on many platforms myself, including GNU/Linux, MS Windows, and SGI Irix, and it works in exactly the same way everywhere. Unless the original author comes and justifies in this talk page why he/she thinks that GTK is not "genuinely cross-platform" I wouldn't add that statement back. nuclear 16:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed the GTK+ statement