"Tim Ferrell" <Tim.Ferrell / s0nspark.com> wrote:
> Nicholas Marriott wrote:
>
> > Saying all that, in my opinion wxWindows is reasonable pretty - unlike
Fox
> > which is unusably ugly -, lighter and more free than Qt (not to mention
the
> > fact that google fails to turn up a website for ruby-qt and it doesn't
> > appear in FreeBSD ports, making it useless for me) and better documented
> > than Ruby/GTK.
> >
>
> What do you find to be ugly about FOX? Just wondering ... admittedly it is
not
> as pretty as a Qt or .NET app can be, but is there anything in particular
that
> offends your sensibilities?

The default font is ugly, the dour grey colour is ugly and non-standard, the
way the menus work is unusual, irritating and ugly. Most of the controls are
blocky, poorly spaced and very heavy-looking and, needless to say, ugly :-).

Much of this stuff is probably fixable and undoubtedly a matter of opinion,
but I don't like it and I don't really have the patience to mess about when
there are already more aesthetically pleasing toolkits out there.

-- Nicholas.