Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations wOOdy-Soft on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Best GUI with C++ ?
- Thread starter pauiel
- Start date
A lot of GUI are dependant upon the compiler you are using. I prefer Borland's C++ Builder. It's as easy as Visual BASIC to drop and drag components into place but gives you a C++ standard compiler.
James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
To determine how long it will take to write and debug a program, take your best estimate, multiply that by two, add one, and convert to the next higher units.
James P. Cottingham
-----------------------------------------
To determine how long it will take to write and debug a program, take your best estimate, multiply that by two, add one, and convert to the next higher units.
chipperMDW
Programmer
> If you prefer proprietary code, Qt is also nice
Though there is an Open Source version of Qt available, if I'm not mistaken.
Though there is an Open Source version of Qt available, if I'm not mistaken.
the open version of Qt is available only for free GPL'd programs (and maybe a few other highly restrictive open licenses).
If you want to sell your product or keep the source to yourself you'll have to buy a license.
It's also very slow on most platforms...
Borland has good libraries shipping with C++ Builder (which now works on Windows, Linux and I think Mac OS/X) making it as portable as anything and more so than most.
If you want to sell your product or keep the source to yourself you'll have to buy a license.
It's also very slow on most platforms...
Borland has good libraries shipping with C++ Builder (which now works on Windows, Linux and I think Mac OS/X) making it as portable as anything and more so than most.
The Open source edition of Qt is available under GPL-like only for non-Windows systems, i.e. Linux, Unix and Mac OS X.
But note that the book "C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3" comes with a non-commercial Qt 3 version for Windows.
We are using Qt for our developments, and we do not have problems with speed or efficiency. Anyway it is faster than Java/Swing. It's a lot easier to learn than MFC. The library is also well-designed, well-documented and reliable.
--
Globos
But note that the book "C++ GUI Programming with Qt 3" comes with a non-commercial Qt 3 version for Windows.
jwenting said:
We are using Qt for our developments, and we do not have problems with speed or efficiency. Anyway it is faster than Java/Swing. It's a lot easier to learn than MFC. The library is also well-designed, well-documented and reliable.
--
Globos
Hi,
So I see people are struggling to decide which is best. MFC, Borland C++ or Qt.
Well, it depends on what one wants to do. If you wish to do simple apps (mostly cute interfaces) use Borland C++ Builder; it works like a charm. If you are an old fashionned guy, then use MFC, though I have no ideea why one would like to "reinvent the proverbial wheel". Most of the code one has to write is already made... probably "one" has too much time; anyway, Qt is the preferred way to do stuff. I haven't tryed it on Windows, although Opera Browser (which, from what I know, it's written in Qt) works and looks pretty cool.
In what concerns Linux (yes, I am a Linux fan) Qt _IS_THE_BEST_CHOICE. Works fast (too fast maybe
) is simple, is well docummented (I never googled the net for info) and is supported by most distros.
Cheers,
Mike
PS: Forgot about wxWidgets. Haven't used it. But the concept tells it all: does almost the same thing as Kylix or Qt, except it's totally free and (probably) adds some features. Sorry... but no. I belive the next step in this direction is to make a toolkit that makes apps look EXACTLY THE SAME on all major OSes. Qt almost does it... but not quite
So I see people are struggling to decide which is best. MFC, Borland C++ or Qt.
Well, it depends on what one wants to do. If you wish to do simple apps (mostly cute interfaces) use Borland C++ Builder; it works like a charm. If you are an old fashionned guy, then use MFC, though I have no ideea why one would like to "reinvent the proverbial wheel". Most of the code one has to write is already made... probably "one" has too much time; anyway, Qt is the preferred way to do stuff. I haven't tryed it on Windows, although Opera Browser (which, from what I know, it's written in Qt) works and looks pretty cool.
In what concerns Linux (yes, I am a Linux fan) Qt _IS_THE_BEST_CHOICE. Works fast (too fast maybe
) is simple, is well docummented (I never googled the net for info) and is supported by most distros.Cheers,
Mike
PS: Forgot about wxWidgets. Haven't used it. But the concept tells it all: does almost the same thing as Kylix or Qt, except it's totally free and (probably) adds some features. Sorry... but no. I belive the next step in this direction is to make a toolkit that makes apps look EXACTLY THE SAME on all major OSes. Qt almost does it... but not quite
As to Swing being slow, that's sadly a well established urban legend.
Swing USED to be slow, but the current implementations are quite fast.
Of course a poorly programmed Swing application will always be slow, but so will a poorly programmed application in any language/toolkit.
Mainly my experience with Qt has been only with poorly built applications but in my experience it's slower at runtime than for example OWL and MFC.
When using BC++, OWL is a logical choice. Easy to use (relatively) and good performance.
If using BCB, VCL or CLX become obvious (and good) choices.
Swing USED to be slow, but the current implementations are quite fast.
Of course a poorly programmed Swing application will always be slow, but so will a poorly programmed application in any language/toolkit.
Mainly my experience with Qt has been only with poorly built applications but in my experience it's slower at runtime than for example OWL and MFC.
When using BC++, OWL is a logical choice. Easy to use (relatively) and good performance.
If using BCB, VCL or CLX become obvious (and good) choices.
I have not said Swing is slow, I have said Qt is faster than Swing
Maybe Qt is slower than MFC or OWL, that sounds normal, that's a little price to pay for portabilty of the source code. Qt provides better API than MFC, more high-level, so it may leads to slow down developped apps.
--
Globos
Maybe Qt is slower than MFC or OWL, that sounds normal, that's a little price to pay for portabilty of the source code. Qt provides better API than MFC, more high-level, so it may leads to slow down developped apps.
--
Globos
I have not said Swing is slow, I have said Qt is faster than Swing
Maybe Qt is slower than MFC or OWL, that sounds normal, that's a little price to pay for portabilty of the source code. Qt provides better API than MFC, more high-level, so it may leads to slow down developped apps.
--
Globos
Maybe Qt is slower than MFC or OWL, that sounds normal, that's a little price to pay for portabilty of the source code. Qt provides better API than MFC, more high-level, so it may leads to slow down developped apps.
--
Globos
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question