Multi-platform toolkit wxWindows 2.4.1 has been released. This contains bug fixes to 2.4.0, including improved behaviour on Windows XP.
wxWindows 2.4.1 Released
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I’m looking for a nice cross-platform library. I’ve looked at wxWindows, but… the OS X version seems not really finished, quite unpolished even. I’ve tried compiling some tutorials, but it was not really cool on my Mac.
Anybody using this library for OS X? Any other ideas? What I’m looking for, should run in Windows / Linux / OS X and preferably Mac OS 9.x and even BeOS (if possible).
No, I’m not considering Java.
By the way (see my previous post), I do not like QT: I do not like the widgets are being recreated on each platform, I do not like the steep price and I do not like the non-open-source approach. Not even mentioning that it doesn’t exist (and will never exist) for BeOS and Mac OS.
>Anybody using this library for OS X? Any other ideas?
(Un)fortunately, QT is your best bet, sorry.
Until wxWindows have a better OSX port and they clean up their look and feel of their apps (which doesn’t feel quite native).
GTK+ also has ports on Windows (without X, but with gtk+ widgets) but it looks ugly as hell and I personally don’t like its API. But it doesn’t have native support on OSX though (without X that is).
I guess all you can do is: 1. use java 2. use qt 3. wait for wxWindows to get better on osx
Other toolkits to think about is Fox-Toolkit (no OSX though) and of course FLTK (supports UNIX/Linux (X11), OS/2, Windows, and MacOS X (but through X only??)). http://www.fltk.org/
There is no BeOS support for any other toolkit except the native and liblayout by Marco Nelissen.
create your ow fork of wxWindows and make it do what you want it to do.
though I would personaly use Java…hey…at least on OS X it will look great!!! 🙂
Does someone has the newest Qt for windows ? The version i can download at the website of trolltech is old. I need it for learning purpose only
You will have to pay in order to get the commercial edition. If you want it to just learn QT, then that older version is good enough for learning.
Or, just install a Linux, and QT 3.x is coming there “for free”. No reason to use the Windows version if you want the latest and greatest for learning.
Yesterday I was looking at FontLab on my OS X machine, and I was wondering what kind of toolkind these programmers were using — it definitely felt native (not QT). Powerplant? Some custom framework? Re-written every GUI-aspect and only a kernel cross-platform?
The same question can be asked regarding the Adobe or Macromedia programs (I’ve got a suspicion Acrobat 6 uses QT; Adobe Photoshop Album does for sure). Anybody got an idea?
Many of these big multi-platform apps do use custom toolkits, yes. Or, a mix of things sometimes, but mostly custom stuff.
I’ve just started looking at wxWindows and I find it looks good. The online documentation explains the classes and class members pretty well. What I don’t like at the moment is the lack of good tutorials.
Now don’t get me wrong, there are tutorials out there, but they aren’t really intuitive. Almost every tutorial I have seen go from a minimal frame with menu, straight to an application with buttons, sizers, text areas and events. While this is good to know, I was hoping to see more focus on individual widgets, one at a time. Maybe more explanation about the sizers, on their own, etc…
How about a tutorial that goes from the minimal sample, then adds a button? Then put an event on the button. Then, add one more widget, etc….
I think, you just need the tutorial for the MFC. wxWindows is compatible to MFC. If you have written your application in MFC, it s very easy to port it into wxwindows.
http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-mfc/
I was just looking around for a good C++ toolkit to program
linux (or even OSX) with.
Maarten Truyens wrote:
Anybody using this library for OS X? Any other ideas?
I’m really surprised … I looked around for a c++ toolkit that
wraps Carbon but I couldn’t find anything current.
I don’t like QT either.
Regarding fltk (version 2), I believe their plans are to eventually
release a port that wraps Carbon. Though, fltk may not be as object-
oriented as you like.
taranis wrote:
I’ve just started looking at wxWindows and I find it looks good.
I had a look at wx also. It’s very similar to MFC (from what
I remember of using MFC). Well, I didn’t spend much time with wx,
but the event table stuff is very MFC-like.
In the end (that is to say, last night), I reinstalled BeOS R5.0.3 Pro
and will be jumping back into the BeAPI today.
It was a long time
ago that I last used it (and I wasn’t very experienced with C++ then),
but I want to see if it’s as good as I think I remember.
—j
I’ve had the pleasure of using wxWindows in Python (wxPython). It seems like a well designed API. But then the Python wrapper is probably a lot more neater than the C++ version 🙂
How is wxWindows better than Qt, in terms of features, architecture, speed, etc. not price or anything about philosophy.
>I’ve had the pleasure of using wxWindows in Python (wxPython)
I fail to see how a wrapper of Python around wxWindows, which is a wrapper around GTK+, which is a wrapper around Xlib, can be “neat” or “clean”. Python is a nice language, but all these wrappers are really not what I would like be using or programming with.
I have tried wxPython in Windows, and it’s a very good development platform.
I have also tried wxWindows with C++, but it’s very irritating when an “Hello World” program with a simple window produces a huge executable.
I m wondering why noone has tried to write a c++ wrapper for Gtk/Qt with the same class names, syntaxs as MFC. MFC is itself a wrapper for win32API
Wait a moment… Isn’t Qt a C++ library? Yes it is, so why should you write a wrapper for it?
Calling GTK+ a “wrapper” around XLib isn’t quite accurate, GTK+ is a toolkit and widget set that uses Xlib for display. You’re not accessing functionality that’s already in Xlib (cause it’s not) from a different approach.
> I have also tried wxWindows with C++, but it’s very irritating when an “Hello World” program with a simple window produces a huge executable.
Can someone confirm it if it’s true ? Is WxWindows for Windows actually the wrapper for MFC or Win32 API ? Is it worth to use it ?
It is commonly called “abstraction”. In this case we have serveral levels of “abstraction”, while it isnt always the efficient thing to do it sure isnt unclean if done right
The problem I have with wxWindows is that it won’t compile the dll’s under .NET 2k3 (even with no optimizations). The lib’s do work though, and once you get your wxWindows project up and running, it’s great. While the tutorials are rare, it’s not a difficult library to use. Since I’d have to pay for the latest version of Qt (I’m a student and can’t afford it), wxWindows is a great deal.
One thing that would be great… Qt has Qt Script for Applications… I’d love to see wxScript or something.
In the meantime, I’ve been considering embedding Python or Javascript. Anybody have thoughts on this?
I really wonder if it is even possible to make good gui applications that are crossplatform. After all, all platforms have their own distinctive feel and gui guidelines.
The text on a button in macosx represent an action (Save), while on windows it represents an answer (Yes).
Buttonorder is somewhat different too, as is the style of the icon graphics and acceptable number of buttons in a toolbar.
The dutch translation of “File” is different in windows (bestand) than in macosx (archief). Some other standard texts are also different.
KDE has a different opinion on how many preferences the user should see than Gnome.
You can find “Preferences” in Gnome in the edit menu, while on macosx it’s in the application menu. In windows it’s in file or extra (afaik). The last entry in the File menu on macosx is “Print”, while on windows it’s “Exit”.
Shortcuts are different too on different platforms. The different standard controls are sometimes different too.
The best bet IMHO is to follow the model-view-controller approach for your applications, and write the model part in a portable manner. Then write the View and controller with the platform native language/frameworks.
Eclipse’s SWT anyone ?
I’ve just started looking at wxWindows and I find it looks good. The online documentation explains the classes and class members pretty well. What I don’t like at the moment is the lack of good tutorials.
I use wxPython all the time and I love it. It is a LOT better that Tkinter (of course, most things are).
Anyway, wxPython comes with an app called wxPython Demo (I don’t know if wxWindows comes with the same kind of app written in C++) that showcased all the functionality of wxPython and provided code samples, which explained how everything worked. Between that and the online class documentation on wxWindows web site, I learned how to use wxPython pretty well (it took me a weekend to feel comfortable with it).
Since the class documentation is all in C++, but transposes nearly seamlessly for Python use, I would imagine you could use the Python examples and transpose them into C++ simply enough if wxWindows doesn’t have a demo app like wxPython does.
I fail to see how a wrapper of Python around wxWindows, which is a wrapper around GTK+, which is a wrapper around Xlib, can be “neat” or “clean”. Python is a nice language, but all these wrappers are really not what I would like be using or programming with.
First of all, GTK+ is not a wrapper around Xlib.
Secondly, wxPython is very neat and clean. To me it is what Java’s toolkits all tried to be but never quite made it. Just try it and you won’t fail to see any more.
I have also tried wxWindows with C++, but it’s very irritating when an “Hello World” program with a simple window produces a huge executable.
If you used visual c++ you were probably buildind a debug version wich “inflates” your executables with debug code, you have to change your build settings to “release version”.
I believe ESR said it best!
“Why the hell hasn’t wxPython become the standard GUI for Python yet?”
It is a pretty darned good one.
Regarding various posts about wxWindows from osnews.com’s moderator and others:
1. The reason wxWindows executables are so large even for a simple “Hello World” demo is that the default is to link statically, adding about 2 mb. to every app, but no more than that no matter how large the app’s code size. If you link dynamically instead, then the executables are no larger than mfc executables and not much larger than native (win32, etc.) apps. The choice is yours. Linking statically has the advantage of not requiring the wxWindows dll’s to be installed on the end user’s system.
2. wxWindows is not a wrapper around MFC. Its api is similar to MFC in some respects but much cleaner and easier to use. In other words, if you’re already familiar with MFC you will find wxWindows very easy to use and much less confusing. Actually wxWindows wraps native win32 on Windows and gtk on linux and there is also a version which wraps native xlib for linux (at least in older releases). However, wxWindows adds a lot more on both platforms. For example, on linux the file open dialog is more like the Windows file open dialog, not like gtk’s confusing widget.
3. Regarding tutorials, look at the sample apps. The documentation for each class is also very good. Not exactly the same as tutorials per se, but just as useful.
4. Why I prefer wxWindows to Qt: First, I have far more experience with Qt. Qt is a much more complete toolkit, providing almost everything you need. wxWindows does not provide as much, but it provides more than any other cross platform toolkit except Qt. Much more than fltk or fox, for example. Qt does have a much nicer richedit class at this time, and better support for internationalizaton. at this time…
Wx is much faster than Qt or feels faster. Apps load faster and performance is more responsive, in spite of using “wrappers” for many things instead of providing its own widgets. However, there is are also some native wx widgets which look the same on all platforms (wxUniversal) and these don’t wrap native widgets. There are plans for a complete wxUniversal implementation for those desiring that approach.
I don’t know anything about wx on Mac. Probably the implementatin is not as complete as wx for Linux and Unix and Windows. You can also use wx to implement .NET, although I have no idea how that is progressing.
In my opinion wx looks just as good as Qt, or better. It doesn’t have Qt’s built in support for special themes. On linux wx uses whatever theme gtk is using and on windows looks just like native windows apps (up to XP at least). So, whatever theming the system uses also themes wx.
Finally there’s licensing, and the fact that wx is not developed by a closed commercial corporation. You don’t have to worry about paying money to get the latest version for any platform, or about future licensng or availability.
Generally, I find wxWindows to be easier to use even than Qt. It’s classes make more sense and do not seem so divorced from other C++ libs and toolkits. Qt is its own world. With Qt it’s like you are coding in Qt, not in C++.
If you want a cross-platform toolkit for linux or unix and Windows, wxWindows is a very good choice for free and open source and for commercial, closed source apps. I certainly wouldn’t rate it inferior to Qt or to any cross platform toolkit overall.
Which is both good and bad. Good because you can easily port MFC applications. Bad because it resembles MFC. Every now and then I have to do some work on some MFC applications. It is horrifying, MFC is just a big pain. Though it is very featureful and featurefinished, it is just _ugly_. GTK and Qt are much more sane. One day maybe GTK will fully support OSX, and get better win32 support. Untill then Qt (or Java) is about the only way to go for a cross platform toolkit. The bad thing is , ofcourse, that one have to pay way to much for it.
But how can wx be faster than Qt, it does not seem right. Anyway, I hope both projects will borrow each others best whenever possible.
wxWindows doesn’t support unicode throughout. So I can see some huge issues with internationalization and localization.
Maybe if I’d know about wxWindows I wouldn’t have written LGI http://www.memecode.com/lgi.php but oh well, too late now. LGI is another XP toolkit, except it IS unicode throughout, and is pretty close to supporting IME’s as well on both supported platforms: Win32 and X11/Xlib.
There is effort to port Wxwindows to Qt (WxQt). But i read in debian mailing list that the developers have a licence problem with Trolltech. Now i m asking, if they have managed to wrap Win32 API without having a licence problem with Microsoft, so why can’t they have the same situation with Qt ? Is this company (Trolltech) worse than Microsoft ?
If one day WxWindows is really succesful, would it be a threat to microsoft ? And wouldn’t Microsoft sue them ?
What we also need for WxWindows is a good IDE, which is until now not availabe in a release version.
Thanks
and i think this company has a very bad business way. Why dont they release the latest Qt for the windows users for learning. They dont have to give the source, only the library. If they do it, then more people will try this Qt and find how good Qt is. Like sun releases every versions for both *nix and windows. And i still believe that the cross platform solution like Qt and all wrapper solutions are a much better solution than Java or .Net
Trolltech dont know how business goes
If you distribute a program made with wxWindows for Windows clients, you either have to link statically or include a DLL file with the application. Either way, the .zip file you distribute is too big.
Look at Delphi. They have wrapped most of Win32 in simple to use classes, still a statically linked executable can be relativly small.
your opinions ? Which wrapper is better ?
If i look at the site gtk.org gtkmm has almost wrapped all versions of Gtk. What about WxGtk. Which version of Gtk did they wrap ? The latest version should work with the gtk. 1.2.6 or later. What does it mean ? Did they wrap all versions ?
Thanks in advance
For those complaining about the big executables – just edit setup.h and exclude all classes that you are not using.
This is a compiler problem, not a wxwin one.
As others have pointed out, wxWindows is somewhat like MFC. gtkmm is a very nice, modern, C++ toolkit. When using it, you get the feeling that it’s designers really wanted to go for correct object-oriented design.
Remember that one of wxWindows’ goals is to be as cross-platform as possible — and this means being able to be built with some older C++ compilers that don’t support all the most modern features of the language.
The newest gtkmm wraps the newest gtk+.
I’m running RH9 and the shrike freshrpms site has all the rpms you need (for RH9) to get the newest gtkmm going.
One problem with gtkmm (in my mind anyway) is lack of some sundry elementary docs. I mean, they have the gtkmm book (which is great to get started with, btw), but little stuff (like how to build the sources after you get them from CVS, or docs describing how the docs are built from certain example code) is missing. Readme’s are very terse.
Try gtkmm2.
If people are looking for a more “modern” C++ toolkit they might consider an application framework that I am currently working on called the Visual Component Framework
(http://vcf.sf.net and http://sf.net/projects/vcf, docs at http://vcf.sourceforge.net/ref.php?src=index.html and http://vcf.sourceforge.net/ref.php?src=srcdocs/index.html )
It currently runs very well on Win32, with an linux port being worked on wrapping up GTK for the UI. I have recently gotten a PowerMac for porting to MacOSX. People who are interested or have experience with GTK are *extremely* encourage to help out so the port can be finshed.
The code is BSD licensed, and I’d love to have more people helping out and using it.
Cheers
I Just started to learn the wxWindows because we needed
a crossplatform c++ toolkit. We evaluated other options but wxwindows seems to fit our goals : writing a cross platform
application (we don’t need java because not all of fbmanager core developers know java – we all know c++ beter) Our target is Unix platforms and secondary the windows platform. It is clear that a wx IDE it could help us (to draw the forms) but we need to make the app simple and not bloated with components (ala delphi/kylix/builder way) and cool skins
It’s a good decision for a small tool. To give you an example of simple and useful program look at http://sylpheed.good-day.net (we want this kind of easy to download/compile/use ) Not many dependencies , quick to update (download, configure,make,make install) Not so bloated interface (like other email clients-outlook anyone? with animated dogs & other viruses)
Here is where the project is hosted if you want to give a
hand http://sourceforge.net/projects/fbmanager/
http://wx4j.org/