[SDL] wxWindows

Bob Pendleton bob at pendleton.com
Mon Jan 27 20:31:01 PST 2003

On Mon, 2003-01-27 at 10:18, Daniel Phillips wrote:

I think that a lot of programs that are being done in SDL would be
better done using a toolkit like wxWindows with OpenGL or DirectX
wigets. What I'm talking about are programs that look a lot like normal
GUI program but happen to have 1 or more animating 2d or 3d windows.
Those programs are best done using a graphics tool kit that has an
OpenGL or DirectX wiget.

I've seen some really nice 3D + GUI applications done 90% in TCK/TK with
the OpenGL widget and a small amount of C/C++ code tacked on for
performance. Works great, takes very little time to develop. 

On the other hand there are programs that are more like traditional
games where nothing on the screen looks like a Windows/Mac/GNOME/KDE...
GUI application. Those programs are best done in something like SDL, or
DirectX where you can draw whatever you want.

The problem is that people tend to learn one or the other and then try
to use the hammer they know to drive screws. Not all tools are
appropriate for all jobs, even when they look like they should be.

		Bob Pendleton

> On Monday 27 January 2003 15:54, Roy Wood wrote:
> > After poking around for a while, I've settled on wxWindows.
> >
> > The pure-GL solutions like PUI and GLUI and GLOW each present a
> > consistent appearance on each platform, since they render within the
> > OpenGL window using their own code (well, popups are handled via glut in
> > GLUI and GLOW, so they look like crap; PUI does its own popups, but they
> > still look like crap).  If this is what you want, go for it.  In my case,
> > I want my app to look native on each platform, so wxWindows was the way
> > to go.
> Does wxWindows play well with SDL?  I haven't tried it, but it looks to me 
> like wxWindows wants to create your windows for you and take over the main 
> event loop.  GTK wants to do that too, which is why I'm not that interested 
> in using it.  It makes no sense to me that a widget set should grab control 
> of your main program, just to make you do workarounds to make it seem like 
> that didn't happen.  QT seems to at least recognize this problem and provide 
> some support for coexistence with applications that want to run their own 
> event loop.  FLTK on the other hand, does what I think a widget set should, 
> and is quite happy to completely stay out of the way of your application, 
> letting you create the OpenGL surface with SDL and run the main loop yourself:
>    http://www.turricane.org/~wizard/projects/fltk-demo/
> I don't know if FTLK can use native widgets.  I think it can use native MS 
> Windows widgets, but I don't have a Windows system and haven't verified this.
> I do very much like the way FTLK interacts with SDL and I like the way it 
> looks, so for me FTLK is looking very promising.  The way I see it, a widget 
> set should just be a widget set and not try to take over the world.
> > wxWindows uses native widgets on the supported platforms, unlike Qt which
> > emulates the widgets (it does a spiffy job-- dunno if it's better than
> > Java in that or not).  As well, wxWindows just released a new version and
> > now supports MacOS 9.x, MacOS X, Win32, Gtk, and Motif.  Oh-- and
> > wxWindows is about ten years old, so it is very mature (well, for an Open
> > Source project), and has a huge userbase.
> For a game, native widgets aren't important imho, they just need to work
> work in the expect way and look good.
> Like everybody else, I'm feeling my way through this.
> Regards,
> Daniel
> _______________________________________________
> SDL mailing list
> SDL at libsdl.org
> http://www.libsdl.org/mailman/listinfo/sdl
+ Bob Pendleton, consultant for hire +
+ Resume: http://www.jump.net/~bobp  +
+ Email:  bob at pendleton.com          +

More information about the SDL mailing list