Hello Richard,

RD> I not sure if you could notice the difference between 100 ms and 345 ms, but
RD> certainly the toolkits are roughly comparable in speed. FOX probably has a
RD> smaller memory footprint than Qt though.

Sorry there were many tests that shows that FOX is faster
then QT. I don't have time to search them in the mailing list just to
present them here in the mailing list - simply accept this.

QT is in many cases far from reaching this especially with the layout
algorithms for complex dialogs eat up a lot of time as the layout is not
deferred.

>> And if you ever need to do something special, so you have to modify
>> the C++ source then you will see that FOX is miles ahead to GTK or
>> QT's internal architecture.
RD> That sounds pretty subjective to me.

No it's not.

Did you ever look at the FOX source code ?
It seems to me that like many toolkits trolltech tried to make the use of
the buildin widgets as easy as possible but not the subclassing and
customization of them.

RD> easy to customise. For instance, in Qt 4 you can customise the model for a
RD> 10000 item tree view, so it only loads the view from the model on a lazy
RD> basis when the data needs to be displayed on the screen. Then your timings
RD> above about FXTreeList wouldn't be directly comparable.

Okay, but this adds much more work to the programmer, something that is not
necessary for FOX. And normally the only time when you want to do this
is when displaying for example database records where the retrieving
of the data is expensive, not the display of it.

Sorry FOX has a lot of weaknesses and for many many people QT is
without doubt a much better solution, but speed and design (if you
need some special customized GUI ideas) are not among them.


-- 
 Best regards,                        emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
 Lothar Scholz                        http://www.ruby-ide.com
 CTO Scriptolutions                   Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's