Port UI to wxWidgets or something for portability

[GoogleCodeExporter]

An wxWidget port would be ideal, because we could do it once and get a UI
that should be very portable.  If wxWidgets turns out not to be the right
option, the alternatives would be:

- write Strongtalk portable versions of the native widgets and dialog boxes.
  This could be a first step, with native widgets coming later.  The GDI
  level interface could either be ported, or a portable bitblt version
  written instead for even more minimal host dependence.

- just port to the native GUI.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by David.Gr...@gmail.com on 22 Sep 2006 at 10:21

[GoogleCodeExporter]

I guess that wxWidget is probably better than all other widget toolkits, 
because 
it's used by python & perl, so it's more or less designed to be used by another
language (not C++).

From my experience binding wxWidget to a scripting language (Io) it's going to 
be 
very messy. The usual way to do this is to write bindings (objects in the script
language with all the methods implemented by primitives) that roughly mirror 
the C++
implementation. I think this seriously clashes with the way Strongtalk 
naturally 
handles library linkage (using dynamic libraries)

Moreover, the way UI is handled right now by strongtalk doesn't look bad to me.
However i'm not an expert in the field and i would love to hear critical 
comments on
Strongtalk's UI approach. If it's worth something, then your first alternative 
sounds
good.

Original comment by prunedt...@gmail.com on 24 Mar 2007 at 10:19