FLTK and Ada?

FLTK and Ada?

[Freejack]

I've been looking around for a nifty little GUI toolkit for use in my
little project here.

I've looked at GTKAda and QT, TASH, yadda yadda yadda.

I've since come across FLTK(Fast Light Toolkit). It's quite stable, makes
really tiny executables, and actually looks halfway decent.
However, it is written in C++. If there is a good way to write C++, I
imagine this would be it.


Has anyone here played with FLTK? Any opinions on it? Run into any
problems importing/exporting functions?

It is designed to be statically linked. Yet the resulting binaries(the
ones that I've seen) rarely exceed 300-400kb. I've seen nice GUIs in FLTK
come in under 20kb.

Any suggestions?

Perhaps a binding would be in order?

(Oh, my minding to Berkely DB is really starting to flesh out now.)


Freejack

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

Freejack wrote:
> I've been looking around for a nifty little GUI toolkit for use in my
> little project here.
> 
> I've looked at GTKAda and QT, TASH, yadda yadda yadda.

And why don't you want to use GtkAda?

> I've since come across FLTK(Fast Light Toolkit). It's quite stable, makes
> really tiny executables, and actually looks halfway decent.

I think it looks rather ugly.

> Has anyone here played with FLTK? 

No and I never will.

> Any opinions on it? 

There are a ton of different GUI toolsets out there. The problem is that
most are half hearted attempts and some die out as they do not get used.
It is also better to use one of the more established GUIs as they are
better tested and have more backing for further development.

> It is designed to be statically linked. Yet the resulting binaries(the
> ones that I've seen) rarely exceed 300-400kb. I've seen nice GUIs in FLTK
> come in under 20kb.

So what?

> Any suggestions?

Use GtkAda.

> Perhaps a binding would be in order?

Sure if you have the time to make and maintain it. Why not?

Preben
-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[David Holm]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 07:05:42 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> Freejack wrote:
> > I've been looking around for a nifty little GUI toolkit for use in my
> > little project here.
> > 
> > I've looked at GTKAda and QT, TASH, yadda yadda yadda.
> 
> And why don't you want to use GtkAda?
> 
> > I've since come across FLTK(Fast Light Toolkit). It's quite stable, makes
> > really tiny executables, and actually looks halfway decent.
> 
> I think it looks rather ugly.

Looks might be totally irrelevant depending on the specifications for the application you are
developing.

> > Has anyone here played with FLTK? 
> 
> No and I never will.

Your loss.
 
> > Any opinions on it? 
> 
> There are a ton of different GUI toolsets out there. The problem is that
> most are half hearted attempts and some die out as they do not get used.
> It is also better to use one of the more established GUIs as they are
> better tested and have more backing for further development.

FLTK is becoming rather popular and I definately don't think this is a dying project. As for
maturity you should also compare it to code complexity.

> > It is designed to be statically linked. Yet the resulting binaries(the
> > ones that I've seen) rarely exceed 300-400kb. I've seen nice GUIs in FLTK
> > come in under 20kb.
> 
> So what?

Have you heard of something called embedded systems?
Your specification might enforce strict requirements when it comes to memory-usage. Would you
sacrifice memory just because you want the application to look good? If so you might find it
difficult to get a job working with Ada.

> > Any suggestions?
> 
> Use GtkAda.

Use whatever fits your project best.

[snip]

//David Holm

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:

> Have you heard of something called embedded systems?

With a GUI?

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[David Holm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 364 bytes --]

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:15:15 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> 
> > Have you heard of something called embedded systems?
> 
> With a GUI?

Random tech: PocketPC, PalmOS, nano-X, Aircraft navigation controls, ATMs, Cell-phones
There are probably tons of people here that can post a better list though...

//David Holm

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> 
> Random tech: PocketPC, PalmOS, nano-X, Aircraft navigation controls,
> ATMs, Cell-phones There are probably tons of people here that can post
> a better list though...

I think I would have use the libs that follows the underlying OS and not
introduce another.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[David Holm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 461 bytes --]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 08:12:49 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > 
> > Random tech: PocketPC, PalmOS, nano-X, Aircraft navigation controls,
> > ATMs, Cell-phones There are probably tons of people here that can post
> > a better list though...
> 
> I think I would have use the libs that follows the underlying OS and not
> introduce another.

Then why are you promoting GtkAda when you should be promoting Xlib? =D

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> Then why are you promoting GtkAda when you should be promoting Xlib?

It was you that drag in the debate of embedded systems. Not me neither
the OP. The OP has not answered my question why GtkAda wasn't right.
That some toolkit can make a executable a bit smaller (20kb is probably
only a hello world app and nothing real)[*] is irrelevant in the majority
of circumstances. But if the need is for embedded then by all means make
a binding for that.


[*] # The "core" (the "hello" program compiled & linked with a static
FLTK library using gcc on a 486 and then stripped) is 110K. ref:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/links/LK9171411600.html

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[David Holm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1791 bytes --]

He mentioned that he liked fltk because his applications were very small when linked statically.
You just seemed to promote GtkAda a bit too much without knowing exactly what it was he was
working on. The only real information he gave us was that he liked the size of the binaries
created by fltk, this might mean he was looking into a good solution for small footprint
applications.

I just wanted you to realise that GtkAda is not the solution to famine, the solution
varies with the problem at hand of which we knew practically nothing from his mail. What we did
however know was that he had already investigated the use of GtkAda and QT and they did not seem
to suit his needs.

So far I believe noone has answered his questions which are regarding the difficulties of using
fltk with Ada.

//David Holm

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 11:18:14 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
> > Then why are you promoting GtkAda when you should be promoting Xlib?
> 
> It was you that drag in the debate of embedded systems. Not me neither
> the OP. The OP has not answered my question why GtkAda wasn't right.
> That some toolkit can make a executable a bit smaller (20kb is probably
> only a hello world app and nothing real)[*] is irrelevant in the majority
> of circumstances. But if the need is for embedded then by all means make
> a binding for that.
> 
> 
> [*] # The "core" (the "hello" program compiled & linked with a static
> FLTK library using gcc on a 486 and then stripped) is 110K. ref:
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/links/LK9171411600.html
> 
> -- 
> «I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
>  So who am I to judge.»
>                  - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:
> I just wanted you to realise that GtkAda is not the solution to
> famine, the= solution varies with the problem at hand of which we knew
> practically nothing from h= is mail. What we did however know was that
> he had already investigated the use of GtkAda and QT = and they did
> not seem to suit his needs.

And I have never claimed that either, but statements like I have looked
at GtkAda, QT, TASH yadda yadda from a person without a real name makes
me suspicious of the real reason. And after the answer I would say my
instinct was correct.

> So far I believe noone has answered his questions which are regarding
> the d= ifficulties of using fltk with Ada.

ditto

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Freejack]

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 07:18:14 -0400, Preben Randhol wrote:

> David Holm wrote:
>> Then why are you promoting GtkAda when you should be promoting Xlib?
> 
> It was you that drag in the debate of embedded systems. Not me neither
> the OP. The OP has not answered my question why GtkAda wasn't right.
> That some toolkit can make a executable a bit smaller (20kb is probably
> only a hello world app and nothing real)[*] is irrelevant in the
> majority of circumstances. But if the need is for embedded then by all
> means make a binding for that.
> 
> 
> [*] # The "core" (the "hello" program compiled & linked with a static
> FLTK library using gcc on a 486 and then stripped) is 110K. ref:
> http://www.linuxdevices.com/links/LK9171411600.html
 
GTKAda is a fine toolkit. I dont have a problem with it.

I'm just looking for something more lightweight. I do not want or need
half of the stuff that GTK throws in. And a lighter toolkit usually(
although not necessarily always ) is easier to work with.

Take for example the folks at radsoft.net ( or rixstep.com ). They're C
junkies through and through, but they keep thier GUIs small, and
relatively simple.

If I was building in a lot of features, then I might use GTKAda. Like I
said, it's good at what it does. But I'm the kinda guy who would rather
do a little extra work to keep the application lean and stable(such as
writing my own binding), rather than just using the nearest all in one
solution.

Aaaarg. Friggin GUI toolkit debates are about as bad as the perennial
Emacs vs Vi flamefest. I'm tired of listening to zealots absolutely
proscribe thier one true way of doing things.

Some software engineering rules of thumb that I go by...

	1. Theres more than one way to do it.
	2. Different domains use different methods.
	3. Reuse is either a boon or a bane.
	4. Read the friggin manual.

FLTK, despite it being written in C++, seems to have actually been
written well. Probably wouldn't use it in a critical application. For
small and simple desktop applications, it would seem to be ideal.

However, if I was tackling something as large as the Ximian/Evolution
suite, then I would probably go with GTKAda.

Hope I clarified things a bit.

Freejack

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

Freejack wrote:
> I'm just looking for something more lightweight. I do not want or need
> half of the stuff that GTK throws in. And a lighter toolkit usually(
> although not necessarily always ) is easier to work with.

Why?

I just make a Hello World application which is 25kb big. Accoring to the
reference I quoted earlier the hello world application was 100kb big
with FLTK, so I really don't see the advantage.

> If I was building in a lot of features, then I might use GTKAda. Like I
> said, it's good at what it does. But I'm the kinda guy who would rather
> do a little extra work to keep the application lean and stable(such as
> writing my own binding), rather than just using the nearest all in one
> solution.

Well I'm not going to stop you. :-) But I find it a bit waste of time to
invest 6-12 months making bindings and then start making an app by the
sound of it would require a weeks work and end result *may* be an
executable which is perhaps 200kb smaller in size. Whereas you could
have made a feature full useful app in the same time.

But are you trying to say that the Gtk bindings done at ACT are not
stable?

> Aaaarg. Friggin GUI toolkit debates are about as bad as the perennial
> Emacs vs Vi flamefest. I'm tired of listening to zealots absolutely
> proscribe thier one true way of doing things.

It is not that, it is that we don't need so many different GUIs.

> However, if I was tackling something as large as the Ximian/Evolution
> suite, then I would probably go with GTKAda.

Why would one need to make something so large to use GtkAda?

It all reminds me of the story from one of our other universities. An
assignment was given in a computer class. Most of the girls chose to
solve it using Lisp while the boys chose C. The girls finished their
projects by the deadline, while the boys either gave code that didn't
work or was incomplete by the deadline. So the mentality of making the
smallest, fastest, leanest etc.. are not always so smart. Sometimes it
is better to get the job done. And that said there are plenty other
bindings which would be far more useful. F.ex bindings to make using
sound in Ada applications easy.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[chris]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Why?
> 
> I just make a Hello World application which is 25kb big. Accoring to the
> reference I quoted earlier the hello world application was 100kb big
> with FLTK, so I really don't see the advantage.

Statically linked?

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

chris wrote:
> Preben Randhol wrote:
>> Why?
>> 
>> I just make a Hello World application which is 25kb big. Accoring to the
>> reference I quoted earlier the hello world application was 100kb big
>> with FLTK, so I really don't see the advantage.
> 
> Statically linked?

Ah no, forgot that. But at any rate unless you are making this for some
embedded system (which is not the case apparently) there is no point in
statically linking. If you do the whole point of the library is removed.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[David Holm]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1021 bytes --]

Let me be evil for a second here. Isn't the main point of a library to provide a good way of
code reuse? Then it doesn't matter whether you link statically or dynamically.
(Although I know what you meant)

//David Holm

On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 16:35:59 +0000 (UTC)
Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

> chris wrote:
> > Preben Randhol wrote:
> >> Why?
> >> 
> >> I just make a Hello World application which is 25kb big. Accoring to the
> >> reference I quoted earlier the hello world application was 100kb big
> >> with FLTK, so I really don't see the advantage.
> > 
> > Statically linked?
> 
> Ah no, forgot that. But at any rate unless you are making this for some
> embedded system (which is not the case apparently) there is no point in
> statically linking. If you do the whole point of the library is removed.
> 
> -- 
> «I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
>  So who am I to judge.»
>                  - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)



[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 187 bytes --]

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 306 bytes --]

David, if that was evil, then I think I'll join your cult...hehehehe..

-- 
St�phane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor
http://www.totalweb-inc.com
For all your hosting and related needs
"David Holm" <dholm@gentoo.org> wrote in message
news:20030816201831.3e412295.dholm@gentoo.org...

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

David Holm wrote:

> Let me be evil for a second here. Isn't the main point of a library to
> prov= ide a good way of code reuse? Then it doesn't matter whether you
> link statically or dynamical= ly.  (Although I know what you meant)

If you have a system with 100 or say 1000 applications that all share a
library versus all included it statically, which system do you suppose
uses less resources?

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Chad R. Meiners]

"Preben Randhol" <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote in message
news:slrnbjn6ab.nh.randhol+abuse@kiuk0152.chembio.ntnu.no...
> David Holm wrote:
>
> > Have you heard of something called embedded systems?
>
> With a GUI?

Sure, why not.  I have seen a lot of embedded systems with screens that let
you control what the hardware is doing.  Of course most embedded systems
that you don't see don't have screens so the observation is definitely
skewed.

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

Chad R. Meiners wrote:
> Sure, why not.  I have seen a lot of embedded systems with screens that let
> you control what the hardware is doing.  Of course most embedded systems

Sure but most of these systems hopefully have the GUI built into the
system and not adding them as extra libraries. Say you have three apps
to run on a cell-phone you wouldn't program one with GtkAda, one with QT
and the last with FLTK f.ex. You would most likely use the underlying
OS. I remember in the old days the Amiga had a large ROM which contained
much of what was needed and you didn't need a lot of huge libraries on
disk.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Preben Randhol]

Preben Randhol wrote:
> Sure but most of these systems hopefully have the GUI built into the
> system and not adding them as extra libraries. Say you have three apps
> to run on a cell-phone you wouldn't program one with GtkAda, one with QT
> and the last with FLTK f.ex. You would most likely use the underlying
> OS. I remember in the old days the Amiga had a large ROM which contained
> much of what was needed and you didn't need a lot of huge libraries on
> disk.

Actually in order to get into the equivellent of "Windows" you only need
one floppy disc which also had applications on it :-). Man, was that
machine fast to boot considering it CPU speed.

-- 
�I think fish is nice, but then I think that rain is wet.
 So who am I to judge.�
                 - The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radioplay)

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Adrian Knoth]

Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:

>> Has anyone here played with FLTK? 
> No and I never will.

Good point. It's like women, you don't need hundreds of good friends,
you only need a real relationship (girlfriend).

 
>> Any opinions on it? 
> There are a ton of different GUI toolsets out there. The problem is that
> most are half hearted attempts and some die out as they do not get used.

... and one is lacking this feature, the other that and so on.
I'm thinking of a X11-based drag&drop-protocol, i.e. a pointer to
memory which contains the "shared" data. But I'm actually not quite
sure how this could be done for remote-applications.

Being part of the core X-protocol drag&drop would be possible between
different widgets and there would be no need for huge environment-libs
like kdelibs or gnomelibs.

Does M$-Windows has such a centralized drag&drop-functionality?

>> Any suggestions?
> Use GtkAda.

ACK.
 
It does the job well, it is portable, it is widely used. Perhaps it's
the only Ada-GUI worth thinking about.

Like always, there is so much rubbish out there. It should all be cleaned
away and concentrated work should be done for the remaining usable code :)


-- 
mail: adi@thur.de  	http://adi.thur.de	PGP: v2-key via keyserver

Wem nicht zu helfen ist, ist vielleicht zu schaden!

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Stephane Richard]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2864 bytes --]

Here's my experience on Binding Ada and C++ (this doesn't talk about Binding
Ada to C which is much more natural).

My experience comes from Ada and the Pascal/Delphi worlds (Ada being in
essense a superset of Pascal/ObjectPascal I believe it can apply here as
experience)..:-).

If FLTK is as streamlined as it seems to be (yes I've been to their webstie
and downloaded and been studying it a bit so that I can at least look like I
know what I'm talking about hehehe....) It would be like trying to bind Ada
to wxWindows (another GUI).  My advice is you'd be better off porting the
library rather than binding to it.  C++ in it's OOP paradigm and different
tecniques and language features work differently than ada (or pascal) would
when dealing with events, tasks and threading, they all can do it, but they
address these issues differently by definition.

If the CodeBase to FLTK isn't too big for you, I would advice porting it to
Ada instead of binding Ata to FLTK.

IT is of course my humble advice, don't take it as the 11th commandment.
But it is what I would do.  I call upon the Oracle of Ada knowledgable
people here to flame me badly and torture me if I have said blasphemis in
suggesting to Port FLTK rather than Binding it. :-)

--
St�phane Richard
Senior Software and Technology Supervisor
http://www.totalweb-inc.com
For all your hosting and related needs


"Adrian Knoth" <adi@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de> wrote in message
news:slrnbjo5kf.2p2.adi@drcomp.erfurt.thur.de...
> Preben Randhol <randhol+abuse@pvv.org> wrote:
>
> >> Has anyone here played with FLTK?
> > No and I never will.
>
> Good point. It's like women, you don't need hundreds of good friends,
> you only need a real relationship (girlfriend).
>
>
> >> Any opinions on it?
> > There are a ton of different GUI toolsets out there. The problem is that
> > most are half hearted attempts and some die out as they do not get used.
>
> ... and one is lacking this feature, the other that and so on.
> I'm thinking of a X11-based drag&drop-protocol, i.e. a pointer to
> memory which contains the "shared" data. But I'm actually not quite
> sure how this could be done for remote-applications.
>
> Being part of the core X-protocol drag&drop would be possible between
> different widgets and there would be no need for huge environment-libs
> like kdelibs or gnomelibs.
>
> Does M$-Windows has such a centralized drag&drop-functionality?
>
> >> Any suggestions?
> > Use GtkAda.
>
> ACK.
>
> It does the job well, it is portable, it is widely used. Perhaps it's
> the only Ada-GUI worth thinking about.
>
> Like always, there is so much rubbish out there. It should all be cleaned
> away and concentrated work should be done for the remaining usable code :)
>
>
> --
> mail: adi@thur.de  http://adi.thur.de PGP: v2-key via keyserver
>
> Wem nicht zu helfen ist, ist vielleicht zu schaden!

Re: FLTK and Ada?

[Freejack]

I should also mention that you can find FLTK at 

	http://www.fltk.org

Freejack