On 1/21/02 8:57 PM, "Horacio Lez" <vruz / ruby-es.org> wrote:

> When I say "iterators" in this context, I am referring specifically
> to Ruby iterators.
> The way you use Ruby iterators is Ruby specific.

Ah. Somehow I read the iterators as being in FOX, not FXRuby, so I thought
you were talking about C++ iterators.

> MFC does a lot more than displaying GUI objects, it can even download a file
> via FTP,  so I wouldn't call it exactly a GUI toolkit, rather a general
> purpose library,

Agreed. So were my other examples. It makes sense though. Once you decide to
use a framework for event handling, it a lot easier if it handles stuff like
DLing files. Otherwise, to handle a simple progress meter you end up
essentially trying to grab the event loop back from the framework.

> PowerPlant and MacApp are  obviously available for the Mac, but not for
> other platforms, so that's why I don't know them.

Actually, MacApp, despite the name and the roots, has been cross platform
for years. Probably used more for Windows than Mac. Not being updated for XP
though.

> When I say "toolkit" what I really want to say is:  an open source,
> cross-platform,
> graphical user interface library, that is able to manipulate objects on the
> screen like
> pushbuttons, listboxes, dropdown menus and such.

Somehow it thought they did more. I'm more used to frameworks that provide
some sort of 'draw the interface' environment and standard classes for
getting user input. In the C++ ones, you basically are handed a standard app
that interfaces with the user and you develop a program by subclassing. If
you know MFC, you know how it works. The more dynamic ones leave classes
open like Ruby. So you don't need to rely on inheritance so much. You just
extend the existing framework and use delegation and containment. You end up
writing a lot less code.
-- 
When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President. Now I'm
beginning to believe it. -Clarence Darrow, lawyer and author (1857-1938)