4 ms·
I agree that it is hard, both of my posts where about why it is hard to make something like LCL - be it exposing it to C++, making a direct port or making somet
by badsectoracula 8y ago
I agree that it is hard, both of my posts where about why it is hard to make something like LCL - be it exposing it to C++, making a direct port or making something inspired by it. However what you describe (which i assume was about "reducing the scope") isn't any different from what Qt and wxWidgets already do, especially on the design side (where LCL and Lazarus shine and is their main attraction). If you are going for something that is already sub-par (ie. worse than Lazarus) and doesn't even provide something better than existing solutions, why bother?
- int_19h 8y agoQt doesn't use native widgets. wxWidgets does, but I think even an automated conversion of LCL API would be better than what they have. It's a framework that's still stuck in C++ circa mid-90s.
- badsectoracula 8y agoI'm talking in the context of working with the framework, not how the widgets are implemented. When i write "Qt and wxWidgets already do" it should be obvious i refer to something they both share, not something they differ. There are many differences in how all the mentioned frameworks, there isn't a point of comparing them down to that detail. FWIW the majority of LCL is also designed in the mid-90s as it is really a clone of VCL which was designed with Windows in mind and has a lot of Windows-isms (e.g. TColor is 24bit only, no alpha channel, the extra byte is used - like with Windows - to encode a pseudocolor to be translated in one of user-defined colors ... from back when Windows allowed users to modify the color palette, but anyway).