Poll #16

FLTK matrix user chat room
(using Element browser app)   FLTK gitter user chat room   GitHub FLTK Project   FLTK News RSS Feed  
  FLTK Apps      FLTK Library      Forums      Links     Login 
 Home  |  Articles & FAQs  |  Bugs & Features  |  Documentation  |  Download  |  Screenshots  ]

Show All Polls | Show Comments | Submit Comment ]

Poll #16

What new FLTK 2.0 feature are you most excited about?
UTF-8 Support 1097 / 40%
Printing Support 504 / 18%
Styles/Themes Support 546 / 20%
Alternate Device Support 89 / 3%
New Menu/Browser Widgets 288 / 10%
Namespaces 161 / 5%
2685 total votes.
This poll is closed.

User Comments

Submit Comment ]

From Nudge, 13:46 Feb 01, 2004 (score=4)

I would like to test a released FLTK 2.0. Since two months I check your site every week but there is no real activity visible... I hope the release will come soon. Good luck.
Reply ]

From Peter R. Brinkler, 11:31 Nov 17, 2003 (score=4)

We DON'T need a fltk 2.0 release.... at least not before it's finished, the developers should take their time getting it RIGHT. Please don't misunderstand me, I am happily using fltk 2.0 cvs RIGHT now, I like it alot better than I did 1.1, I programmed my entire thesis ui in fltk and apart from a namespace switch somewhere in those final months, I had no problems with it. Nor do I have problems with using it for a opensource project in which I am participating.

Fltk needs some things before ready for release:
  fluid needs to be cleaned and expanded upon to handle new functionality present,
  More group widgets like Packed, I use that almost all the time and I'd like more like it but with a bit more logic for resize,
  Plugin API,
  More work on the themability,
  Logical position functionality.... wasn't someone called Sami workin g on that? (if so where can I find it :)
  svg support....
Reply ]

From Hans Yperman, 05:10 Jan 04, 2004 (score=4)

I don't agree.  FLTK 2.0 is not finished, but it is already used by lots of people. Right now, there seem to be 3 versions of FLTK in use:  1.1, 2.0 and efltk.  Maybe 1.2 will confuse the situation further.  It seems better to me to release a half-finished version of 2.0 that everyone uses, than to keep waiting  ( while supporting all 3 (or 4) versions).   If the interface of 2.0 is clean enough, then we can add the other half of the new functions for 2.1 etc.  The most important fact is that everyone uses and concentrates on the same version.  Maybe 2.0 was just to ambitious to complete in one go,and should have been called 3.0.  My 2 cent:Let's just concentrate on 1 release of FLTK.
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 13:04 Dec 19, 2003 (score=4)

better fluid gets my vote!
Reply ]

From George, 13:37 Nov 11, 2003 (score=4)

Last time I checked FLTK2 CVS (about a month ago), it had a very BAD Mac OSX support, while FLTK1 works with OSX flawlessly.
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 11:46 Jun 12, 2004 (score=3)

I have recently been playing with FLTK, but I wondering if anyone has thought of using something like fribidi to help with the joining with UTF-8?
Reply ]

From Chris E., 09:46 Apr 20, 2004 (score=3)

The following is in my opinion the only significant things which would be good to add to FLTK:

Some simple sound loading/playing functions (preferably supporting at least .wav and .midi). Support for printing. Simple network support for TCP and UDP (low level would be fine). A modification to fltk::Group so that instead of the current "resizable" system, each child can be given horizontal and vertical stretch ratios, rather like wxWidgets sizers.

FLTK would be perfect for me with these additions; keep up the goood work.

Chris E.
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 15:55 Apr 20, 2004 (score=4)

Playing sound has in no way anything to do with GUI, so please keep it out of FLTK. Use a cross-platform sound library if you want easy sound support.

FLTK already has some internet support, at least the most important part for a GUI toolkit, merging the inet events with the GUI events. Although it isn't documented for 1.x (except the enum), it is there. See fltk.org/documentation.php/doc-2.0/Fl.html#add_fd and the appropriate source files for more info.

Again, if you want more than that, you should use a real (cross-platform) internet library.
Reply ]

From Chris E., 05:43 Apr 21, 2004 (score=1)

Yes, of course that should be done for anything major. But I was thinking more in terms of things like 'custom beeps', if you see what I mean - not full audio support, just enough to play the odd custom sound effect.

As for the networking, those functions are alright once you get a file descriptor for a socket, but I didn't think the functions to do that were portable... Am I wrong about that?

The trouble is, the program I'm developing uses such tiny amounts of both of these things that it seems a bit wasteful (and bloat-producing) to use specialised libraries with full functionality.

Chris E.
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 02:59 Apr 25, 2004 (score=4)

For sound, if you really are using very small ammounts, then to save adding a library, you could fork and exec aplay, or something similar.
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 05:22 Apr 09, 2004 (score=2)

How about implementig systray according to freedesktop.org specification?

Reply ]

From hel420, 00:28 May 11, 2004 (score=3)

how about implementing layout managers like qt,java?
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 13:16 Jan 05, 2004 (score=2)

How about pure OpenGL and GLX(or equiv.) as a target device.  There is a huge demand for a good OpenGL only rendered GUI.
Reply ]

From Thomas Kerwin, 13:19 May 06, 2004 (score=1)

I think this is a great idea too. I have been using FLTK because of the ease of use, and supporting widget rendering directly into an opengl context would be very useful for full-screen projects.
Reply ]

From DanGroom, 06:13 Jan 12, 2004 (score=1)

I second the opengl idea: using pure opengl for rendering would (or at least having the option to do so) would make FLTK useful for developing interface components for games and other software where fullscreen hardware rendered apps are the norm.
Reply ]

From podarok, 01:52 Nov 11, 2003 (score=2)

need plugin API + release for 2.0CVS
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 22:07 Nov 10, 2003 (score=2)

Does FLTK2.0 still use the old X core font system? Does it support Xft?
Reply ]

From Dejan Lekic, 07:02 Jan 24, 2004 (score=1)

Sure it supports Xft...
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 19:25 Apr 07, 2004 (score=1)

I have ported FLTK v1.1.4 with Microwindow to VxWork ARM Platform. However, FLTK cvs 2.0 is difficult to port because of lack C++ namespace support in VxWorks

I have try to using Editor to modifiy namespace as follow... "namespace fltk {"  -----> "extern "C++" {" "using namespace fltk; ----> removed it ! "fltk::" --> "Fl_"

However, it seems not straight foward as above and very difficult to port cvs 2.0 to compiler which doesn't support namespace.
Reply ]

From Fabinnerself, 09:57 Dec 24, 2003 (score=1)

What about connecting with databases and ODBC, there are something...
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 13:14 Jan 05, 2004 (score=4)

That would then be SHTK (Slow Heavy TookKit) :)
Reply ]

From mpdickens, 15:58 Jan 24, 2004 (score=1)

IMHO, there are plenty of database connectivity tool kits that can currently be used with FLTK (And I write a lot of SQL code in DB2 and Postresql...). Please concentrate on more meaningful and therefore, useful features.
Reply ]

From Markus Niemistö, 09:50 Nov 18, 2003 (score=1)

I hope there will be a somekind form layout. The kind that allows me to attach widgets to each other's edges and makes the window to resize cleanly.
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 15:03 Dec 20, 2003 (score=1)

Yeah, I second that.  It's the single most usefull aspect of Borland Delphi.  It would be great to have similar GUI RAD tools for FLTK!
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 08:48 Apr 06, 2004 (score=1)

I think he was talking about automatic resizing by the code itself.

A nice GUI form editor would't be bad though...
Reply ]

From Yuri, 03:48 Nov 12, 2003 (score=1)

We need 2.0 release!
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 18:48 Nov 28, 2003 (score=4)

I second that!!
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 05:46 Nov 10, 2003 (score=1)

For those of us "late adopters" who aren't at the leading edge with 2.0 it would be useful to have a "What's new in 2.0?" with set of bullets or paragraph about each of the new features mentioned in the poll. This could also be included in the FAQ.
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 13:54 Nov 08, 2003 (score=1)

What about a tarball?
Reply ]

From Anonymous, 18:23 Nov 08, 2003 (score=5)

Yes, What about a tarball?
Reply ]


Comments are owned by the poster. All other content is copyright 1998-2023 by Bill Spitzak and others. This project is hosted by The FLTK Team. Please report site problems to 'erco@seriss.com'.