>> sigc++2 is just 100% pure C++ software engineering joy. sigc++ is >> entirely independent of any graphical toolkit - you can use it >> non-graphical applications as well. >> > > Same with Qt. It doesn't have to be graphical.
i prefer libraries to small and self-contained whenever possible. sigc++ is concerned with one thing and one thing only: providing a robust, flexible type-safe callback (some call it "signal/slot") mechanism for C++ programming. Qt is a great library, but it has aspirations somewhat beyond that :) > Having used both GTK and Qt I have to say that Qt is IMHO a much >more polished and mature package. I have yet to run into anything that >wasn't already anticipated by the Qt developers - QProcess, QPrinter, >QSocket, QFtp, QHttp, QBrowser... The one thing that annoys me about i completely agree with you. and my agreement is part of the reason why i wouldn't want to use Qt. i don't believe that the list of features you've just mentioned should be in a drawing toolkit - i'd rather have a really great drawing toolkit *plus* another library (or more than one) with support for these other cool (and useful) things. your mileage may vary, of course. i think that the decision to use Qt is a perfectly sensible one for a lot of people - its just not the one i'd make. --p
