[fxruby-users] QtRuby

gga ggarra at advancedsl.com.ar
Thu Jan 18 17:15:20 EST 2007

Björn Bergqvist wrote:
> Hello,
> Has anyone tested QtRuby? I'm doing a small OpenGL application
> http://www.discretizer.org and just want to know the arguments for
> staying with fxruby.
> This is what I have discovered:
> Pros:
> -Fxruby seems to have a very nice OpenGL support (FXGLViewer) which is
> what I really need.
> -Nice looks. No unnecessary theming support.
Well, I've gone back to FLTK, having created now my own FLTK2.0 ruby
bindings, which I expect to release probably at the end of month.  As
for FXRuby vs Qt....
FXRuby is:_

- Truly multi-platform: OSX, Windows and Linux ( QtRuby is just linux,
no windows afaik )
- More flexible licensing ( Qt is a commercial toolkit and as such it is
not free for commercial ventures on windows, afaik)
- Fox bindings use SWIG, which is a well documented API wrapper that
anyone can debug (Qt is open source, but the binding is done with a
custom wrapper C program, with no docs)

- FxRuby is pretty heavy compared to FLTK.  (Qt is worse, thou)
- No themes
- Ugly looking (particularly on Unix OSes, where there's no support for
AA fonts, for example)
- No printing
- No good canvas widgets or GDI drawing functions
- No marshaling of interfaces (to create GUI skins)

If you wonder why I went back to FLTK, for me:

- Same as FXRuby plus...
- Faster and Lighter
- fluid (rfluid in my case to spit ruby code)
- Themes
- Good drawing functions
- Antialias fonts

- No printing
- Ugly platform-agnostic file requester.
- No marshaling of interfaces (to create GUI skins)
- FLTK2.0 is not yet a 100% stable API.

Gonzalo Garramuño
ggarra at advancedsl.com.ar

AMD4400 - ASUS48N-E
Kubuntu Edgy

More information about the fxruby-users mailing list