> We have only three realistic options at this point in time:
>
> 1) Use Qt
> 2) Use MFC
> 3) Use native Win32 windows
>
> Each issue has mayor drawbacks:
> [...]
Even given this restriction of choice, I do not think that 2 is best. This
is a _complete_ new port, moreover, every line of code written for that
port is lost for Unix land.
If _I_ had to choose between these three, I'd probably go for the Qt
solution. At least a temporary solution has been outlined in this case
(using Kalle's licence) and I don't see a really dark future.
And to get a bit religious: Even if there were later no way to get hold
of other licences, I'd rather shove money to Trolltech than to Microsoft.
They've got money from me for the keyboard, that should suffice for the
next century...
> Even if Troll tech or some other party donated 10 Qt licenses for LyX
> developers, it would be hard to get going, since basically no Windows
> developers know Qt. The people would have to be "unix-converts" that
> know Qt from Unix, but for some reason have a genuine interest in a
> Windows port.
I have to admit I have no clue: Suppose we had a working Qt-port for Unix
(which is being worked on, isn't it?) how much effort would be needed
to "port" that to Windows? How much work would that be compared to a
native Windows port?
I could guess, but I don't really know.
Andre'
PS: Now I am already talking in favour of a Qt port... must be madness...
--
André Pönitz ........................................ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
