yes - they'd just made the move then; in fact, we were all set to use wxwidgets, and then someone stumbled upon that and that plan was promptly thrown to the wind.
If you've no objection to Microsoft and are on Windows, I'd recommend .NET (Windows Forms). I've only done hobby-projects in it, but it's really easy to get started with and get something working.
Qt I used for a work project, but it was 5 years ago, I've no idea how much its changed.
As a complete GUI amateur: I found Qt slightly harder to get started with, but once I got going it was fine. .NET was easy to get started with but somehow felt more "quirky". Less coherent.
The instructor had moved to making all his C++ GUI using Qt; partly because it recently went open source.
Before that he was using wxWidgets in his C++ GUI projects. His GUI projects had to be multi-platform.
the main reason why wxWidgets does some things the way it does, is because some of the C++ features that we have grown accustomed to now (templates, exceptions, etc.) didn't exist when the wxWidgets project was begun. we're talking about pre-standard C++. they don't like to break backward-compatibility, so many of the new features didn't get used in newer versions.
I was thinking about this myself and I read a bunch of QT vs wxWidgets (and others) pages. What I took away from it, is that QT is the more robust, modern choice and now that it is LGPL (as are other free GUI libs), it definitely leads the pack.
While it is LGPL, I don't think QT have a static linking exception, so dynamic link and your are fine. This is really more of an uncertainty in the license and it seems rather arbitrary that anyone would bring out lawyers over static vs dynamic linking. I believe wxWidgets does have an exception to their LGPL, to specifically allow static linking, if that is a huge deal.
What I actually ended up installing on my machine was FLTK, because I really wanted something lightweight to goof around with. I have ZERO aspirations to write commercial applications, so I am not worried about have super polished look/feel. For my personal project, I prefer something that will produce smaller executables (I just don't like bloat). I haven't done anything with it yet other than "hello world".
Beware of the fact that flame-wars often contain exaggerated information.Quote:
bunch of QT vs wxWidgets (and others) pages
I may actually do so, to have some fun with clothes on too.Quote:
What I actually ended up installing on my machine was FLTK, because I really wanted something lightweight to goof around with.
Did anyone mention you will have a huge advantage if/when you are going to write mobile applications if you go the Qt route?
Qt doesn't run on only Maemo.
It runs on Windows, Linux, Mac, Symbian, Meego, Android. Although Android might be a bit of a stretch since it isn't official.
Is there anything else(no java please) that is supported by so many mobile platforms ?
There was one thing... MoSync. I haven't really explored it, however. It uses C++, albeit it seemingly "lacks" the C++ standard libraries (see their forums for more info on that topic).
Other than that, I don't know.