Re: AW: [ooc-compiler] OOC GUI development for Windows (was: Problemswith OOC under Cygwin 1.1.2)

[Stewart G. <gre...@mu...>]

Tim...@ma... wrote:

> > - GTK has its own object model which is based on C. I'm not sure how
> > well Oberon-2 objects can be fitted into their object/callback system. I
> > imagine that coding new widgets would be far cleaner under VO. GTK
> > probably has a more complete set of its own widgets.
> 
> The overall design of Gtk is a mess. VO is not bleeding edge (a lot of
> minor stuff to fix and redesign) but still it is better than Gtk.
> Exspecially
> the Model/Viewer concept of VO is very nice to have.

Yes, I agree.
 
> > - The GTK DLLs are rather large: about 2 megabytes in total. Its
> > probably no worse than MFC, but its still big.
> 
> I don't know the size of VO, but fear that it plays in the same liga.

On my system, a stripped statically linked XTest.exe is just under 720K.
This includes most of the VO widgets, but also includes the GC and
probably most of the OOC core library. H2O.exe is a fairly small
application; it also uses the GC and core and is just under 210K. At a
rough guess, I'd say that the size of VO is therefore about 500K, around
one quarter of the size of GTK.

> > - GTK is also fairly unstable in that it is developing fast (on all
> 
> VO is in flux. Small changes and even some bigger changes may happen
> and the developer still has to exspect to activly maintain it
> application to make it compileable under future versions of VO.
> However the developers are with you and will help you.

That's also important. Because its smaller and cleaner, its probably
much easier to maintain VO code than GTK code.

- Stewart