nanogui: Thread: nanogui widget set

Well, I have no contact with any fltk developpers, I just used it
sometimes.

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Lalo Martins wrote:

> IMHO, besides being small, one very important thing we need to
> look at is application availability OR programming ease.

Fltk has some application already. Not too much, but for example, a window
manager exist.
 
> And the "very small" widget set should probably be easy to code
> for; people don't want to spend weeks coding something this
> specialized, IMHO.

Well, the few hundred k size of the fltk not a problem. I going to use it
for embedded systems, but even a 2M flash boot device is enought for the
linux kernel, the nano-X, fltk and the application.

Yes, sometimes the 2M flahs is overkill in embedded, but I think on the
very small systems, where the size realy matter, there is no real
operating system at all.

So, which version of nano-X is recomended to try out with fltk?
I have the 0.4, do I need newest?

Bye,
-=Lajbi=--------------------------------------------------------------------
 LAJBER Zoltan           ####@####.####          http://jht.gau.hu/~lajbi 
 GAU Dept. of Vehicles and Thermal Tech.                  http://jht.gau.hu
 A member of HuLUG                          http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/mlf/

: So, which version of nano-X is recomended to try out with fltk?
: I have the 0.4, do I need newest?
: 

My last submission was 0.4, which completely works.  Alex Holden has
been working on some things, and introduced a pre-release numbering
system.  You'll have to check with him to see what versions work and don't work.

Greg

> Is it hard to port an already working widget set?
> I looked on fltk, it's not big, has a very good gui designer and I just
> liked it for X.

isnt fltk C++.

On Friday, June 11, 1999 4:04 PM, Alan Cox ####@####.#### wrote:
: > Is it hard to port an already working widget set?
: > I looked on fltk, it's not big, has a very good gui designer and I just
: > liked it for X.
: 
: isnt fltk C++.
: 

I just looked at it, and it appears it is, but it is implemented on top of win32 or
Xlib.

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Is it hard to port an already working widget set?
> > I looked on fltk, it's not big, has a very good gui designer and I just
> > liked it for X.
> 
> isnt fltk C++.

It is. Why, it's a problem?

Bye,
-=Lajbi=--------------------------------------------------------------------
 LAJBER Zoltan           ####@####.####          http://jht.gau.hu/~lajbi
 GATE Jarmu- es Hotechnika Tanszek                        http://jht.gau.hu
 A member of HuLUG                           http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/mlf

> Well, fltk is _relatively_ small and simple. The lib is around 500k. It
> run on X, OpenGL, and win32 api.

I really really worry about the "500K is small and simple" folks. This is
meant to be a small GUI. Think "50K is large" please

> On Friday, June 11, 1999 4:04 PM, Alan Cox ####@####.#### wrote:
> : > Is it hard to port an already working widget set?
> : > I looked on fltk, it's not big, has a very good gui designer and I just
> : > liked it for X.
> : 
> : isnt fltk C++.
> : 
> I just looked at it, and it appears it is, but it is implemented on top of win32 or
> Xlib.

Ok, that means while its a fine nanogui candidate its not useful for the ELKS
side of things (elks barely has ansi C let alone C++)

On Friday, June 11, 1999 4:11 PM, Alan Cox ####@####.#### wrote:
: > Well, fltk is _relatively_ small and simple. The lib is around 500k. It
: > run on X, OpenGL, and win32 api.
: 
: I really really worry about the "500K is small and simple" folks. This is
: meant to be a small GUI. Think "50K is large" please
: 
: 
I completely agree.  As an aside, a little joke: so there I was,
hacking micro-windows in the middle of the night, adding the required features
to do anything useful, always worrying about how this thing needs to run in
64k+64k, and then I'm done with 256 color bitmaps, so I need to test.
So I convert and load up my favorite picture, a Ferrari, and compile and 
link it into micro-win.  It works!  I "size" the executable, and find that
the program is *still* about 57K, except that the data segment is now
84K!  82K of it is my Ferrari picture... (this seemed funny at 2am, maybe
it loses a little now that I'm fully awake...)

> So I convert and load up my favorite picture, a Ferrari, and compile and 
> link it into micro-win.  It works!  I "size" the executable, and find that
> the program is *still* about 57K, except that the data segment is now
> 84K!  82K of it is my Ferrari picture... (this seemed funny at 2am, maybe
> it loses a little now that I'm fully awake...)

So you load it in stripes from the disk. The scary thing is it can't be that
long ago this was how you did images. I remember doing stuff with images
in tiles on disk and keeping offsets to each tile.

Now my desktop PC video card has as much memory as my mailserver

Alan

On Fri, 11 Jun 1999, Alan Cox wrote:

> > Well, fltk is _relatively_ small and simple. The lib is around 500k. It
> > run on X, OpenGL, and win32 api.
> 
> I really really worry about the "500K is small and simple" folks. This is
> meant to be a small GUI. Think "50K is large" please

In this case we need to write one. The "W widget set" is about this size,
but it's ugly isn't?

Bye the way, before we do something, what is the requirements for this
widget set?

I'm new on this, so please tell me some, if decided already.

We need buttons (normal, radio, check, light, image), menus, edit (single
and multi line) and list controls.  A combo with list/edit. Any more?

On what platforms? 

It determine the size of the avaiable boot device, the size of memory, and
even the programming language.

I need Linux on strongARM, PPC, maybe alpha, not decided yet
The boot device is from 2M, ram is in 16-32M. 
I think the m68k is interesting too, but not the ELKS, becouse it stick to
x86.

It looks like  Lalo Martins sayd: one extremly small and one
with comparable with desktop widget sets.

For me, the main restriction is not the RAM size, but the boot device
size. What is your aim: 1M with kernel and nanoX+widget?

Alain, for an extremly small, the gpm driver is not suitable, imho.
  
Bye,
-=Lajbi=--------------------------------------------------------------------
 LAJBER Zoltan           ####@####.####          http://jht.gau.hu/~lajbi
 GATE Jarmu- es Hotechnika Tanszek                        http://jht.gau.hu
 A member of HuLUG                           http://mlf.linux.rulez.org/mlf