Poll #25

I've just gotten started with FLTK 1.1.x, because we are writing an fltk binding for Falcon programming language ( http://falconpl.org/ )
[ Reply ]

From abalakin, 21:46 Mar 13, 2011 (score=3)

Right now I use FLTK v.1.1.10 for MathGL library and UDAV program. I do it due to its wider spreading (i.e. as standard package). However I need UTF/printing support and ready to switch to v.1.3 as quick as it will be released.
[ Reply ]

From qxqzxzly, 08:22 Nov 27, 2010 (score=3)

I have just finished my c++ course,so I'd like to apply it to some aspects.So I choose FLTK,for its size and effective.I hope the 1.3x Release come out soon.
[ Reply ]

From zaplia.mail, 09:40 Jun 10, 2010 (score=3)

Hello. I had used fltk 1.0 and 1.1 for some serious applications since 2000, fltk API was fine, far better then others, and fluid was and still is unbeatable. BUT(!) that look and feel was nice about 7-10 years ago. Now 90% users and 100% top managers want GUI with native (say windose) look with a lot of candy. So for general purpose apps something more up-to-date is required - Qt/GTK/Wx are unavoidable. Modern toolkit should incorporate easy universal API for fast antialiasing vector drawing and alphablending, SVG, printing. Still waiting for 2.0 (and cairo/agg supprot) to became stable ...
[ Reply ]

From urkle, 09:39 Jun 03, 2010 (score=3)

We are currently using FLTK 1.1.x for Frictional Games' Penumbra for a few dialogs. And we are using it more extensively in the next game Amnesia, but will probably be switching to 1.3 so we can get UTF-8 support as we are going to have several translations with the games release.
[ Reply ]

From chunkyks, 20:41 Jan 18, 2010 (score=3)

I would really like to start using something more modern than 1.1 [especially since that appears to be the official suggestion]; but for as long as 1.1 is what comes with fink, ubuntu, fedora, etc, etc, then my hands are tied.

When someone downloads my sourcecode, I want it to just build and run on their system without them having to build and install extra packages, possibly causing problems with their package manager as they go.

From newclassfive, 07:44 Nov 26, 2009 (score=3)

Just started using FLTK 1.1.10 to replace a multi-platform GUI written in RealBasic. Original motivation was to reuse C++ code from controlled applications in the GUI controller. Researched Qt, etc., but found FLTK very easy to work with, both under Windows and Linux. Haven't tried Mac yet. My only real problem under Windows was external dependencies, until I learned to grep the MinGW libraries.
[ Reply ]

From dsamoyloff.yandex, 06:07 Nov 21, 2009 (score=3)

I've used 2.0 in the internal commercial project (a tool set). I'm not into it anymore though, so it's probably not developing currently.
[ Reply ]

From engelsman, 08:41 Nov 07, 2009 (score=3)

From greg.ercolano, 10:33 Nov 01, 2009 (score=3)

I use 1.3 and don't really have any problem at all with FLTK1's API, and never felt motivated to use FLTK2 really.

From bluekid, 12:55 Oct 28, 2009 (score=3)

i use 1.1.9 for the stability but for the future i want to migrate 1.3
[ Reply ]

From yuri, 01:42 Oct 12, 2009 (score=3)

but 2.0 is very unstable in api, I wrote some apps using 2.0 about 7 years ago and now it's not work (I try port it to current changes but not of all work, MDI for example).
[ Reply ]

From sathisse, 08:48 Oct 10, 2009 (score=3)

I've been doing new dev using 1.3 exclusively for about a year now and I haven't encountered a single real issue. When running the 1.1.x samples posted in the general forum, I haven't noticed a single instance of unexpected behavior.
[ Reply ]

From isaque, 09:41 Oct 05, 2009 (score=3)

I'm glad to see fltk2 is not so behind the 1.1 trunk and even more used than 1.3.

I like the way the API was developed. It makes more sense to use namespace fltk than using the FL prefix. I understand there are a lot of bugs to be fixed, but I would be happy to help to fix them.

I actually submitted some bug fixes that are still missing testing people to take a look on those.

I don't like to see this great lib to be put aside in a premature manner.
[ Reply ]

From chris.mobilemascots, 17:15 Oct 02, 2009 (score=3)

I have used 2.0 some years back. Lately, I have been using QT, but have found myself getting somewhat tired of it's architecture, bad debugging and lack of easy static linking.

So, I am back with 2.0, but the temporary removal of Native File Dialogs is killing me. And, even the default FileChooser is broken on WIN32.

From greg.ercolano, 10:32 Nov 01, 2009 (score=3)

I thought Fl_Native_File_Chooser does work with FLTK2?

FNFC was developed as a side project by me, and has always been an 'external' tool, not (yet) part of the core toolkit. I think Frederic Hoerni helped port it to FLTK2 back in Oct 2007, and I've been keeping those mods in the current stream.

So if you download it, you should be able to build it and use it in your apps. Contact me directly by email if you have trouble. (See "BUGS" in the README.txt)

[ Reply ]

From Anonymous, 09:05 Oct 02, 2009 (score=2)

All my applications are in 1.3 now, but the 2.x API really is cleaner. Porting however is not an option. I would write new apps in 2.x if it was stable.
[ Reply ]

From Luiji, 11:27 Mar 31, 2011 (score=3)

I have to agree with this. Furthermore, FLTK 1.1 is the most common version on GNU/Linux distributions (probably for the stability reason).
[ Reply ]