Any Experiences in Cross-Platform Develoment Tools?

[smrf]

Are there any recommodations and experiences e.g. with PureBasic or RealBasic or other complete multi-platform development solutions?

[Jaap Weidemann]

Have a look at Qt. It covers a wide range of platforms including Windows, Mac, Linux/X11, embedded Linux, Windows CE and S60 (in the near future) and it's free and open source! Bindings for various other languages are available if you’re not a C++ buff (although not all implement the complete widget set).

Jaap

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

One extra vote for Qt here. If you want a crossplatform GUI, there's Qt Creator now.

[smrf]

Have a look at Qt. ...

As far as I know, that would force me to develop OpenSource projects only or otherwise to pay a huge amount of money.

I had thought about WxWidgets instead, but I didn't get it into practical work. Thus I have asked for a complete solution package.

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

Have a look at Qt. ...

As far as I know, that would force me to develop OpenSource projects only or otherwise to pay a huge amount of money.

You are wrong. Since version 4.5 Qt is LGPL (instead of GPL).

I had thought about WxWidgets instead, but I didn't get it into practical work. Thus I have asked for a complete solution package.

I've used wxWidgets before Qt was LGPL. Leela for example is written in wxWidgets.

[smrf]

Have a look at Qt. ...

As far as I know, that would force me to develop OpenSource projects only or otherwise to pay a huge amount of money.

You are wrong. Since version 4.5 Qt is LGPL (instead of GPL).

not at all as I understand, see at http://www.qtsoftware.com/products/licensing :

Code: Select all

Qt GNU LGPL v. 2.1 Version
This version is available for development of proprietary and commercial applications in accordance with the terms and conditions of the GNU Lesser General Public License version 2.1. 

Support services are available separately for purchase.

Because there are no means at hand to prevent using or misusing of LGPL licensed sources by people not even being able or willing to understand the license (e.g. no legal German translation exists yet), that copyleft idea is of no interest for individual programmers like me, which are interested in a fair and correct use of their work.

[ilari]

Because there are no means at hand to prevent using or misusing of LGPL licensed sources by people not even being able or willing to understand the license (e.g. no legal German translation exists yet), that copyleft idea is of no interest for individual programmers like me, which are interested in a fair and correct use of their work.

Maybe you should actually read the GNU LGPL before spreading FUD like that. If you link to the Qt libraries dynamically, you can use any license you want for your program, and you don't have to release your source code.

[smrf]

Because there are no means at hand to prevent using or misusing of LGPL licensed sources by people not even being able or willing to understand the license (e.g. no legal German translation exists yet), that copyleft idea is of no interest for individual programmers like me, which are interested in a fair and correct use of their work.

Maybe you should actually read the GNU LGPL before spreading FUD like that. If you link to the Qt libraries dynamically, you can use any license you want for your program, and you don't have to release your source code.

As I already mentioned, there still is no valid translation of the LGPL e.g. into German language. If there will be misinterpretations caused by reading the valid document in English as a non native English speaker and not being a lawyer, it would not be my fault. If the LGPL should be globally accepted, I recommend to also provide a bunch of legal and valid translations.

In the LGPL there e.g. is following part:

If you link other code with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them
with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling
it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

How could that be done without providing an easily to be disassembled object file?

[ilari]

As I already mentioned, there still is no valid translation of the LGPL e.g. into German language.

What's this then?: http://www.gnu.de/documents/lgpl-3.0.de.html
Or do you absolutely need an official translation? If so, then you're just trying to make your life harder than it needs to be. Why would it matter if a user or someone else misinterpreted the LGPL? It's not your problem, especially if you choose a different license for your project.

In the LGPL there e.g. is following part:

If you link other code with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them
with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling
it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

How could that be done without providing an easily to be disassembled object file?

I didn't find that exact part in the LGPL, but I'm pretty sure it's about modifying the library, or adding code to it. So if you modify the Qt libraries and use them, you must distribute your Qt object files.

[smrf]

As I already mentioned, there still is no valid translation of the LGPL e.g. into German language.

What's this then?: http://www.gnu.de/documents/lgpl-3.0.de.html

"... Es handelt sich hierbei nicht um eine rechtsgültige Festlegung der Bedingungen ..."

Or do you absolutely need an official translation? If so, then you're just trying to make your life harder than it needs to be. Why would it matter if a user or someone else misinterpreted the LGPL? It's not your problem, especially if you choose a different license for your project.

In the LGPL there e.g. is following part:

If you link other code with the library, you must provide
complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them
with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling
it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

How could that be done without providing an easily to be disassembled object file?

I didn't find that exact part in the LGPL, but I'm pretty sure it's about modifying the library, or adding code to it. So if you modify the Qt libraries and use them, you must distribute your Qt object files.

That would be another implication. Nevertheless you have to enable the customers of your programs to relink a somehow changed used LGPL library theirselves to your program version, maybe moreover during a very long time.