> Qt is a great library but it's not a good strategic choice > - You need a license for commercial products (and the price is high) Wrong. It's LGPL now.
> - It doesn't target all C++ platforms Almost all. Basically all linux, windows, and macs distros. > - You can't guarantee it'll exist and being maintained in 20 years Same thing for any other. i doubt any current software will still "exist" in 20 years, chances are most likely for everything to be rewrote adapting to upcoming technologies. > - Some other technical issue list below > Let's be less technical to expose my point of view: > - If you want to do OCR this mean you have images, and you certainly > have the lib to open them. Why include JPEG, TIFF or anything else > functions? I already have this and it's so simple and fast to convert > my image into a RAW 24 bits image array. i partially agree here. As i said, libraries should not be used in the core (Which can compile as standalone pure C++), but in the surrounding layer for low-skill developers (A+B). > - Some platform doesn't like STL, some other BOOST, because we need > very basic wstring (unicode), vector, map, no I/O, no thread we can > offer to avoid STL, BOOST and really being compatible with all > platforms Thread will be required for sure, and please give me one platform for example where Qt can't compile (And please, don't tell me some propriétarry os such as old Nokia, because nothing would compile here. Even C++ CRT and runtimes aren't there). > - Future is multicore processors, how take advantage of them? With an > OCR it's simple, open 8 image and do 8 OCR at a time. Splitting OCR > process for one image would be too complex and useless because on > today processors OCR is fast enough for one image. That's a perfect example where threading commes in handy, and the splitting isn't that copmplex once we have the distinct workflows in mind. > - I don't want to reinvent an OCR, I want to reverse engineer > Tesseract and rewrite only the OCR part. Exactly. > - A "pure" C++ library can very easily being transpose in Java, C# or > same family language. It's important for future : next Windows Mobile > 7 machine can't run C++ code. Windows Azure prefer manage code. > Android... I think future is managed OS. Why transpose if the library is clean enough for making wrappers / bindings? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "tesseract-ocr" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tesseract-ocr?hl=en.
