I was using an isigraph window to display a 3D
gl2 plot on my MacBook Pro. When I tried to run
the program on a 64-bit Ubuntu Linux box there
was a problem initializing the graphics display.
As I recall, the problem was lack of support on
64-bit systems, but it's been a while so I don't
recall all the details.
The nice thing about J6 was that it was very easy
to lay out a GUI using by dragging items onto the
form editor. I could then edit the automatically
generated code to line things up more precisely.
I certainly hope that wd will be maintained. There
should be upward compatibility from one J version
to the next so people don't have to keep drastically
revising their code.
--- Brian
On Sat, 16 Mar 2013 09:24:47 +0800
bill lam <[email protected]> wrote:
wd in J8 is open source so that it won't die if users
continue
to maintain it.
J602 wd supports both 32 and 64 bit where J runs. Which
platform or specific features did you have trouble with?
Пт, 15 мар 2013, McGuinness, Brian писал(а):
The wd interface should be a permanent part of J from
now on. The J6 wd and the associated GUI design tool
made it very easy to create GUI-based J applications
that were reasonably portable between platforms. The
only major flaw was a lack of support for 64-bit
platforms.
When J7 came out with completely different interfaces,
I felt as if the rug had been pulled out from under me.
Why use J at all if one can't count on a stable
platform to work with? Java would then be a better
choice. Also, while I experimented a bit with JHS,
I never did anything with JGTK due to the lack of
user documentation. A few sample programs do not
constitute adequate documentation, nor does a
pointer to documentation for the C/C++ GTK API.
If J8 continues to support wd and the GUI design tool,
and these work on 64-bit platforms, then I will
seriously consider writing GUI-based applications
in J once again. But I'm not interested in playing
a constant game of catch-up with an ever-changing
platform, and I'm sure most other people feel the
same way.
--- Brian
On Fri, 15 Mar 2013 15:26:01 +1300
Ric Sherlock <[email protected]> wrote:
>The wd implementation vastly simplifies the GUI
landscape for J6/J7
>users.
>It is much easier to port existing apps to J8 and IMO
provides a
>simpler
>and more powerful GUI design experience compared the
old J6 wd,
>while at
>the same time being vastly more consistent across
platforms.
>
>As I see it there are a couple of additional benefits
of the have
>in the J
>IDE written using wd:
> a) once the wd Qt interface becomes stable there
should be much
>less
>reason to need to provide new binaries. Further
>development/maintenance of
>the ide/qt addon could then take place without any
requirement to
>install
>new binaries each time, simply upgrading the addon
using Package
>Manager
>would do the job.
>
> b) It provides a proof-of-concept of the wd GUI
framework for a
>more
>complex application, as well as a great source of
examples of how
>to use it
>to create an application.
>
>Assuming performance would be acceptable, maybe it's
something that
>could
>be looked at for J8.1 or J9?
>
>
>On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 11:12 PM, chris burke
><[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> how feasible it would be to write the ide using the
wd
>>interface?
>>
>>It could be done, though we would need to extend wd a
little.
>>
>>However, I don't think there would be much benefit.
With earlier
>>J
>>versions, we felt that having the IDE in J meant both
that the
>>code would
>>be much simpler, and also easier for the end user to
customize.
>>The first
>>no longer holds with Qt, i.e. the amount of source for
the Qt IDE
>>is about
>>the same as the source for the old J wd IDE (and both
very much
>>smaller
>>than for GTK). Also, we never really had end users
customizing
>>the IDE.
>>
>>One thing I do notice with Qt is that the system is
noticeably
>>snappier
>>than in J6 wd and J7 GTK.
>>
>>Incidentally, we didn't design it this way.
Originally, the Qt
>>IDE had no
>>wd, and it was only because we wanted some simple
windows, e.g.
>>for
>>viewmat, that we looked at it at all. Bill and I
worked on this
>>for a few
>>days over Xmas, and to my surprise, found that
implementing wd
>>would be
>>relatively straightforward.
>>
>>On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Ric Sherlock
<[email protected]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> The wd interface for Qt seems to be rounding out
really well.
>>It looks as
>>> though it is pretty fast and powerful as well as
being quite
>>easy to use
>>> for J6 wd users.
>>> Currently the main part of the J Qtide is written
directly in
>>C++. I'd be
>>> interested to hear how feasible it would be to write
the ide
>>using the wd
>>> interface?
>>> What would be the downsides?
>>>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> For information about J forums see
>>http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>For information about J forums see
>>http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>For information about J forums see
>http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see
http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
--
regards,
====================================================
GPG key 1024D/4434BAB3 2008-08-24
gpg --keyserver subkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys 4434BAB3
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see
http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
