Re:Future direction - GRASS GUI

Hello
    Eventhough I am subscribed to this conference only for a short
period of time, I keep a keen eye on the thread concerning the GRASS
GUI. I am glad someone finally decided to create such a thing as a GUI,
yet if I could voice my opinion, I would like to opose Bernhard Reiter's
views on these issues:
    - python: seems to be a good object-oriented language, but how many
people can actually program in it?
    - C++ : why not? seems very practical for GUI development
    - Qt : same question: why not? it is a good library to program in,
can be used for rapid development. It is safe (no overflows and other
nasty issues). It is portable to many platforms and so are applications
which rely solely on the library functions and ot system-specific
libraries.

    I rise these questions because since Christmas I was independently
working (at that time I wasn't in the mailing-list) on a GUI for GRASS
(I don't like Tcl/Tk ;-)) using Qt 2.0.2 and C++ under Linux.

    Greetings
                            Pavol Cvengros

Contact: cvengros@gssr.sk
Geological Survey of Slovak Republic

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Pavol Cvengros's letter:

    - C++ : why not? seems very practical for GUI development

only if you use Qt. C++ is, IMHO, bloated.

    - Qt : same question: why not? it is a good library to program in,
can be used for rapid development. It is safe (no overflows and other
nasty issues). It is portable to many platforms and so are applications
which rely solely on the library functions and ot system-specific
libraries.

I agree. I personally like best Gtk (portable on Unix and Windows, don't
know about MacOS.) Note that, if I remebber correctly, Qt licence has some
problems when linking with GPLed code (and GRASS is now GPLed, isn't it?)

    I rise these questions because since Christmas I was independently
working (at that time I wasn't in the mailing-list) on a GUI for GRASS
(I don't like Tcl/Tk ;-)) using Qt 2.0.2 and C++ under Linux.

nice. but, if you are interested in GUI building give a look at
Gtk/GLADE/libglade (and bindings for perl/python/C++/ObjC/...).
You'll be surprised.

ciao,
federico

--
Federico Di Gregorio [http://www.bolinando.com/fog\] {Friend of Penguins}
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact fog@debian.org
                             Best friends are often failed lovers. -- Me

On Fri, Jan 14, 2000 at 01:18:33PM +0100, Pavol Cvengros wrote:

I am glad someone finally decided to create such a thing as a GUI,
yet if I could voice my opinion, I would like to opose Bernhard Reiter's
views on these issues:
    - python: seems to be a good object-oriented language, but how many
people can actually program in it?

Well a huge number and rasing constantly. Because it is much easier to
handle as Perl, C++, Tcl, Lisp or Java (the last two ones debatable)
the number of capable programmers is high.
It is even a good choise to learn programming. (Recommended by Eric
Raymond in his Hacker FAQ e.g. ).

Oh and people who use it:
  http://www.python.org/psa/Users.html
  (included: Digital Creations (Zope), Infoseek, eGroups,
  NASA, Red Hat, IBM, MCI Worldcom, HP... )

It is easy to learn. Anybody who know the programming concepts, picks
up python within hours.

    - C++ : why not? seems very practical for GUI development

Very bloated. Hard to learn. Easy to make mistakes. No real standard
library and lacking stabel implementations. (Even gcc lately fixed
problems with the stl and exception handling.)

    - Qt : same question: why not? it is a good library to program in,
can be used for rapid development. It is safe (no overflows and other
nasty issues). It is portable to many platforms and so are applications
which rely solely on the library functions and ot system-specific
libraries.

Qt is not free software.
At least v1 wasn't. V2 is but only for Unix and with a couple of
problems. The windows version is proprietory. Thus it is not cross
platform.

  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html

  The Qt Public License (QPL). This is a non-copyleft free
software license which is incompatible with the GNU GPL. It also causes
major practical inconvenience, because modified sources can only be
distributed as patches.

        We recommend that you use QPL-covered software packages
only when absolutely necessary, and certainly don't use the QPL for
anything that you write.

        Since the QPL is incompatible with the GNU GPL, you cannot
take a GPL-covered program and Qt and link them together, no matter how.

        However, if you have written a program that uses Qt, and
you want to release your program under the GNU GPL, you can easily do
that. You can resolve the conflict for your program by adding a notice
[..]

    I rise these questions because since Christmas I was independently
working (at that time I wasn't in the mailing-list) on a GUI for GRASS
(I don't like Tcl/Tk ;-)) using Qt 2.0.2 and C++ under Linux.

Well, you are free to work on anything you like.
Somebody who knows the stuff can certainly write good programs
with Qt and C++. But then why not use fortran or forth? :slight_smile:

  Bernhard
--
Free Software Projects and Consulting (intevation.net)
Association for a Free Informational Infrastructure (ffii.org)

Qt:

I think the political issues on Qt and linux are solved, arent they? Isnt
KDE GPL:ed? But on the other hand, Qt on windows is not free (if I remember
it right).

// Fraxinus
                      <fraxinus@home.se>

----- Original Message -----
From: Federico Di Gregorio <fog@debian.org>
To: Pavol Cvengros <cvengros@gssr.sk>
Cc: <GRASSLIST@baylor.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 14, 2000 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: Future direction - GRASS GUI

| Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Pavol Cvengros's letter:
| > - C++ : why not? seems very practical for GUI development
|
| only if you use Qt. C++ is, IMHO, bloated.
|
| > - Qt : same question: why not? it is a good library to program in,
| > can be used for rapid development. It is safe (no overflows and other
| > nasty issues). It is portable to many platforms and so are applications
| > which rely solely on the library functions and ot system-specific
| > libraries.
|
| I agree. I personally like best Gtk (portable on Unix and Windows, don't
| know about MacOS.) Note that, if I remebber correctly, Qt licence has some
| problems when linking with GPLed code (and GRASS is now GPLed, isn't it?)
|
| > I rise these questions because since Christmas I was independently
| > working (at that time I wasn't in the mailing-list) on a GUI for GRASS
| > (I don't like Tcl/Tk ;-)) using Qt 2.0.2 and C++ under Linux.
|
| nice. but, if you are interested in GUI building give a look at
| Gtk/GLADE/libglade (and bindings for perl/python/C++/ObjC/...).
| You'll be surprised.
|
| ciao,
| federico
|
| --
| Federico Di Gregorio [http://www.bolinando.com/fog\] {Friend of Penguins}
| Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact fog@debian.org
| Best friends are often failed lovers. -- Me
|

Scavenging the mail folder uncovered Fraxinus's letter:

Qt:

I think the political issues on Qt and linux are solved, arent they? Isnt
KDE GPL:ed? But on the other hand, Qt on windows is not free (if I remember
it right).

no it isn't. and the fact that kde is GPLed is a *big* problem. qt can't
be linked w/ default gpl, but require an exception from *all* the authors.
it is very difficult for the kde people to obtain such an exception because
they (in the best free software fashion) base they work on some old code.
it is because of this problem that debian does not include the kde in main,
but only small parts of it (the ones w/ good licenses.)

ciao,
federico

--
Federico Di Gregorio [http://www.bolinando.com/fog\] {Friend of Penguins}
Debian GNU/Linux Developer & Italian Press Contact fog@debian.org
                           Don't dream it. Be it. -- Dr. Frank'n'further

Hello everyone,

  Has anyone looked at the GUI developed by GPZ technology (called
GRASS-XMI)? As an end user (and not a programmer), I really like the
model they adopted.

  As I read this discussion regarding GUI's and GRASS, I have become
concerned about the perceived need to be portable to Microsoft Windows.
I like GRASS because it runs in all my unix environments very well, and
does not rely on any new, ephemeral, or non-standard libraries or OS
components. Would this change just to be another member of the Windows
community?

  I have become marginally proficient at reading C code over the
years because not only is GRASS written in C, but almost *every* other
component of my OS is also written in C. Not to say that other languages
aren't wonderful, just that there must be other end users out there who
are like myself, and don't have the time or capacity to learn more
languages. Perhaps with gtk, this is a non-issue? Again, I am not a
programmer.

  In summary, a better GUI sounds great. I just hope it doesn't
lead to the degradation of all that currently makes GRASS so wonderful --
particularly if all we gain is portability to the MS Windows platform.

Thanks for your attention,

Jeff.

Jeff P. Hollenbeck
Dept. of Forest Resources
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR 97331
hollenbj@ucs.orst.edu