On Wed, 2002-07-24 at 12:31, Wayne Vucenic wrote:
> I seem to read that quote from wxWindows differently than you do.  I
> think what they're saying is that "it cannot take
> a Motif application [written without using wxWindows] and
> [automatically] generate a Windows application".  But if the
> application is written using the wxWindows API, then it can be
> moved from one platform to another.

i may indeed stand corrected. 

> I think wxWindows deserves a closer look.

i will look into it more.

soon i plan to establish an "official" debate to hash out the best means
of underlying implementation. i encourage you to join in.

thanks,
~transami


> 
> TS> we require something common, i.e one api for all platforms.
> 
> This is exactly what wxWindows provides.  I used wxWindows a bit about
> a year ago.  I was only programming on Windows, but my understanding
> is that I could have taken my code and recompiled it on Linux or one
> of the other supported platforms, and it would have run there with
> (essentially) no changes.
> 
  It seems mature and stable,
> has a fairly large and energetic group of people enhancing it, and
> many programmer-years of effort have been expended on it.  I
> especially like that it has been around about 10 years, and has wide
> support, so it's unlikely to go away anytime soon.
> 
> Wayne Vucenic
> No Bugs Software
> C++/Ruby Contract Programming in Silicon Valley
> 
> 
-- 
~transami