Re: Visual Studio .NET 2003 port

[email protected] wrote:

> [....]
>
>off topic: I finally found out what the p.p in etc. p.p. stands for:
>perge perge!
>  
>
And that means? :)

>>Since we figured out the lincensing issues and came to the conclusion 
>>that it is perfectly fine to redistribute the runtime files from the 
>>book-cd, QT 3.2 seems like the perfect choice for the future.
>>    
>>
>
>I only agree 50%. Sure, 3.2 is much better than 2.3 and all, but it is still
>not up to date (and always having to buy the newest qt book sucks ;)
>So I would not call usng 3.2 "perfect". _If_ we should use qt in 0.5,
>then 3.2 is definitely the best choice on windows. But it might be even
>better to avoid qt alltogether...
>  
>
Agreed, although i strongly favour QT at the moment, since 3.x offers a 
LOT of stuff. (drag and drop, nice toolboxes, decent canvas class).
Anyway, I don't want to force QT as the API to go - but I'm using it atm 
to create a prototype (well, actually I'm stuck with porting pluc, 
somehow vc doesn't like it's flex/bison files :/ ). This will be a 
rather hacky "proof of concept" thing, so choice of the GUI toolkit 
doesn't matter anyway.

Hm, maybe I should have a closer look at wx windows....

-coma