Andre, On 6 March 2008 14:05:58 you wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 07:16:55AM -0500, Raymond Martin wrote: > > I agree it would be difficult. The major benefit from my perspective > > is that it would be immediately cross-platform. > > Could you name a single platform for which there is > (a) LyX not available, > (b) Java available, and > (c) an interest to run LyX on?
Well, I'm not trying to make a debate here, but by "immediately cross-platform" I meant that it is possible to create your application on one platform and have on the others (that support Java) without having to have it recompiled first. Since my intention is to use QtJambi, not Swing, SWT, or Gtk, It is very likely that a port of LyX to Java would run on just as many platforms as it does now (albeit for some platforms the needed Qt libs would still have to be compiled first, which means it is about the same work to get installed for the Java version as C++ on those and less work on those OS that Trolltech already provides the libs precompiled). > > My first choice for GUI implementation is QtJambi which gives provides > > almost all of Qt to Java. Java also does have some benefits over C++ > > in terms of simplicity and other features. > > That's debatable, especially when talking about C++/Qt vs Java... Sure, there are pros and cons to both C++ and Java. I have programmed in both languages and I used to detest Java. Now I don't and can see it is better than C++ in certain areas, while still having its own problems. Since Trolltech is providing both Qt and QtJambi (which is just Qt with a wrapper) the main difference is a Java interface. > > One that comes to mind is multiple threads, which LyX does not have > > from what I can see (LyX blocks every time you go to view an output > > format). Java would not have an issue like this, but Qt 4.4 is going > > to have multi-threading. Hopefully LyX will move to that version > > quickly. > > Could you stop this nonsense please? Threads have been part of Qt for > ages, and even if they weren't there are several thread implementations > available for use with C and C++. I already stated in another post that I should have said concurrency framework. > The fact that LyX does not use threads extensively is in no way related > to the choice of programming language. Standard C++ does not have threads built in. You need a separate thread library for that (e.g. pthreads). Qt may well have something, but it is not part of C++. On the other hand, Java has always has threads, unlike many other programming languages, it was built from the start that way. Choice of language can have something to do with threads. > > > I am also wondering why LyX does not have dockable widgets planned for > > 1.6. > > Because they are already there. I did not see it in the list of features for 1.6 and it is not there in 1.5. If it is in the application, a list update at some point perhaps. Raymond
