On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 11:46 AM, samppi <rbysam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My impression is that if you build and compile whatever application > you're making and deploy it using something like Java Web Start, the > user usually doesn't have to do anything with regards to manually > getting other libraries like Jambi; it would download it automatically > or something. And there may be options for creating opaque executables > for Windows and Linux—I know that you can do this for Mac OS X. I read > that a disadvantage to Qt is that you have to use a different library > file for different operating systems. > Yes, because Qt is natively compiled C++, not OS independant bytecode.. You could always package all the platforms together at the cost of a bigger download. There's also the OS X 64 bit problem but it will be solved with Qt 4.5 that will be released next month. > > Having said that, I could find much more documentation for Swing than > for Jambi. How active of a project is Jambi? > Very active. Well, Qt is because Jambi is just a Java wrapper around Qt. Look at what's new in the next release: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.5/qt4-5-intro.html I think the native support for ODF files is very exciting. And the previous version 6 months ago introduced better concurency: http://doc.trolltech.com/4.4/qt4-4-intro.html Qt is rather rapidly progressing. But if you have trouble finding doc, look for Qt itself since the classes and concepts are the same. And the official Jambi doc is quite good: http://doc.trolltech.com/qtjambi-4.4/html/com/trolltech/qt/qtjambi-index.html --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
