Qtopia coming for Neo1973

john jptmoore at gmail.com
Tue Sep 25 17:41:49 CEST 2007

I can echo these views.

I personally like a C based framework as I develop on my Neo in Scheme. 
I use a Scheme-to-C compiler called Chicken which happens to work 
extremely nicely with GTK+. I can develop much more efficiently/easily 
in Scheme than I can in C. I would not have this choice if I wanted to 
continue with Chicken using with a C++ framework. No doubt it is 
possible to integrate but what a pig it would be. Of course I am a very 
small minority taking this approach but at least I can if I want! It is 
good to have options. You could argue I am putting all my eggs in one 
basket (pardon the pun) but I have faith in GTK+.

Arguing which framework is technically superior may be a bit like 
arguing about VHS vs Betamax. In the long run it might not matter. Some 
of us with go down one route and will be looking hard to find people to 
trade films with :)

I have built an ipk of the Chicken Scheme system if anybody is tempted 
to the dark side?  ;)


Carlo E. Prelz wrote:
> 	Subject: Re: Qtopia coming for Neo1973
> 	Date: mar 25 set 07 01:23:37 -0700
> Quoting Ted Lemon (mellon at fugue.com):
>> This is an utterly pathetic excuse not to try something.   
> It would have been, had I never attempted to get familiar with that
> language. But I have, a handful of times. And I concluded, many years
> ago, that it is not a language for me.
> I rest my case: if you want you can use c++ with GTK. But you cannot
> use c with QT. 
> As far as I can perceive, making a c wrapper of a c++ library (and I
> do not mean c-looking code that compiles under c++ - I mean a library
> that makes heavy use of those ungodly quirks that c++ is burdened
> with) is a task that no sane individual might desire to embark
> into... But if/when such a wrapper becomes available, I will make sure
> to carve out half a day to gain some experience with it.
>> So it's kind of mind-boggling that you were able  
>> to come up with so much prose to document your complete lack of  
>> knowledge on the topic.
> You are welcome to maintain your boggliness if it pleases you. I have
> not stated an absolute judgment of value from the programmer's point
> of view, of which I am not capable, since I have never programmed in
> QT (and I have never programmed in QT because it requires c++ -
> otherwise I would have given it a try by now, free or not free).
> I still prefer the look of Gnome to that of KDE, but this is purely an
> aesthetical judgment. I expect that with some effort I would be able to
> use Gnome themes on KDE.
>>> Also, Qtopia, by having no X server running in the background, makes
>>> it much more difficult for the average developer to bring his/her own
>>> window to the screen of the phone.
>> Case in point.   This simply isn't true.   You're saying things that  
>> you don't know to be true.   Why would you do that?
> Hrmpf. How many X applications can you find in sourceforge? This
> translates to how many programmers who already can make use of one of
> the many tools that are available to generate an X-compatible
> executable? And on the other hand, how many people are there who can
> easily translate their ideas into a user interface that runs under
> Qtopia's windowing system? 
> I do mean this when I say that X is easier than Qtopia. I have never
> programmed in Qtopia's environment, so I cannot state how easy or
> complex it may be.
>>> I see OpenMoko as a developer-oriented phone/system.
>> I haven't even been able to get a build working.   It only builds on  
>> one platform - the build is so brittle that if you don't have that  
>> platform, you can't get it to go.   It's early days, so I don't count  
>> that against the development team, but this is another stunningly  
>> ignorant statement.   Have you actually tried to develop an app for  
>> Openmoko yet?
> No, since I do not have an openmoko. I might have bought one had they
> not canceled the plan for a rebate for the second model.
> But I have had a look at the code. And I understand that the X running
> on OM will be basically the same X that currently runs on this laptop
> of mine from which I am writing this message (minus opengl,
> possibly. It will in any way be sensibly faster than the first X I
> worked with, back in '93, on that old Tseng Labs video card...).
> Once I correctly set up the cross-compiling chain of tools, I do
> believe that the very well-known window manager that is used by OM
> will not refuse to manage the windows of my humble executables, too.
> Carlo
> PS In your mail, you wrote 1) that I use pathetic excuses, 2) that I
> have complete lack of knowledge on topics that I write my prose about,
> 3) that I say things that I don't know to be true, 4) that I make
> multiple stunningly ignorant statements. Can you please keep these
> personal observations out of the conversation? Just for the sake of
> peace and harmony...

More information about the community mailing list