ONEEYEMAN wrote:Now Vadim said many times that wx API is not perfect and if he would, he would rewrite wx from scratch with the proper API in mind. Problem is - it will take a lot of time and money to do just that.
Yep, it's the overall issue of the life, ONEEYEMAN : There's no try, it's directly in reality... Well, but seeing the world context (everyone dreams to be a business man rather than developer, everyone celebrates Steve Jobs or Bill Gates but nobody knows there're just kids in front of Dennis Ritchie or Bjarne Stroustrup, everyone goes towards SaaS to display Hello on screen because it can be sold $1 per month), not sure better would be even noticed from outside. In French, we have an expression (sorry, no idea about the equivalent in English) : "Ce serait donner du caviar aux cochons !"
wxWidgets is perfect like this (I means far above what the world is able to appreciate) and in regular C++ where (as you stated) Qt is not pure C++ going through C++ compiler.
Now I'm sure something like QML / WPF / DialogBlocks / wxFormBuilder is the language for GUI, it can be translated to any native code by an interpreter (or compiler) potentially, as long as there is enough information. So writing compiler seems a hard way.
Houla, you're mixing a lot of different concepts, Ronald:
- DialogBlocks and wxFormBuilder are not languages, but apps to generate wxWidgets-oriented C++ code about GUI. Here the language is C++.
- A compiler is not a converter of any language to any language, but is used to generate machine language (directly understandable by the microprocessor) or, at least (talking about pseudo-compiler), towards a lower level language (eg. bytecode about Java). If you convert wxWidgets-oriented C++ to WIN32-oriented C, it's not a compiler, but a "simple" (good luck) converter.
Maybe some day, M$ will announce that WPF can generate native code for Linux / Android / iOS /Mac OS X, like .Net. I believe M$ is going this way. I think this way is good for open source, because it's easy to switch from one compiler to another.
And Trump will dedicate the rest of his life to helping the world in the purest selflessness LOL Business men only do what is directly profitable for them -- DOT. You'll often see big company involved in open source with the idea to fork towards a proprietary branch later (eg. Apple and GCC), but rarely without a profit goal in background... And more, they often spend a lot of money to prevent any use that doesn't generate earn for them, not their neighbours (eg. You -- officially -- have to use a Mac for macOS, they wrote their boot and kernel to enforce this). Notice that my examples are focusing on Apple, but the same could exactly be said about every big company -- GAFAM bless you
[This was my last message in this thread
, but hoping -- I can't put more energy -- you understood the concept: Stop fantasizing -- said without any animosity, but to help you go forward -- and start to design and code for real ! You'll see, it's more difficult than talking, but far more rich inside]