WxWidgets 3.0: First Major Release in Several Years

First time accepted submitter VZ writes "The first new stable wxWidgets release in years and the first new major release since 1998 has just been announced. wxWidgets 3.0 now includes official support for Cocoa-based 32 and 64 bit applications under OS X, GTK+ 3 under Unix and has thousands of other improvements." Update: 11/12 01:00 GMT by U L : Clarification: it's been several years since the 2.8 release series, and fifteen years since wxWidgets 2.0.

Comments

Some (in)equations

[fatphil]

2013 - 1998 = 15

Fifteen != Seven

Slashdot Editors != Editors

Re:Is it still relevant?

[VZ]

The main reasons to prefer wx to Qt remain the same as always:

1. Native widgets (especially important under OS X).
2. Written in 100% standard C++ (no compiler-specific extensions, no preprocessor).
3. More permissive licence (notably allowing static linking for non-open source applications).

And then there is wxPython which is quite popular in Python community.

Re:But what does it really mean in practice?

[pjrc]

I use wxWidgets. Most of my experience is with version 2.8.

If you care deeply about making a native applcation that truly has a native GUI on Windows, Mac and Linux, wxWidgets is great. Nothing else even comes close. Java, QT, XUL, FLTK, TCL/KT and others all produce programs that aren't quite right on some plaforms.

If you don't care about cross platform native GUI applications, or you target browsers with javascript+node+[insert newest buzz], then wxWidgets is not for you. If you really only want to produce a program for Windows but maybe someday have the option to easily port to Mac and Linux, while wxWidgets can give you that, if you don't truly care are doing all 3 from the beginning, I believe you'll find wxWidgets it simply too much trouble.

The truth is wxWidgets is pretty much its own system, an SDK in itself. It has a tremendous amount of somewhat complex design, like sizers, which means you have to go to some extra effort. Of course, for making things work well on all platforms... not simply just work, and not work well on Windows but end up sub-standard on Mac or Linux, but work truly well on all 3, the extra effort to use wxWidgets is definitely worthwhile.

But the truth is you do have to put in extra effort. wxWidgets has great documentation to help, but the other truth is everything is heavily steeped in C++ class heirarchy. If you're good with C++, it'll feel pretty natural. If not, well, you'll get much better with C++ in the process, if you persevere. In the end, if your goal was a native application that truly works natively on all 3 platforms, the sort of thing users take for granted and never notice, you'll be rewarded.

But if you don't really, truly, earnestly care about targeting all 3, if only Windows has to be high quality and the others are afterthoughts, or if you just want to get things done as quickly as possible with minimal learning, you'll probably find wxWidgets to be far too much trouble.

Re:You'll get used to it ...

[davester666]

Well, somebody has to add spelling and grammatical errors to the submission.