I haven't looked closely at XWT, but personally, I hope they did *not* base
all control and property names or anything else on GTK#. If they did, that'd
sound like they're shoehorning other implementations to match GTK#, which
sounds like bad design to me. Like trying to fit cylinders into square
h
Ian Norton-Badrul-2 wrote
> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:28:30PM +0100, Petr Bena wrote:
>> I know that people are probably switching to wxt but I don't like it.
>
> I know what you mean, for me the big hole is the lack of a multi-line text
> entry box.
That is the big stumbling block for me as wel
In addition to the other responses, note that you COULD use Xwt, but force it
to use the Gtk bindings even if on Mac and/or WPF, or better yet, you could
allow user control over which interface to use. This would allow you to
choose the "faster" and "smaller footprint", but still give your users
a
Hey,
Just a few points...
Xwt is not a replacement for Gtk#. It is merely a wrapper around Gtk#. It
will never replace Gtk# as it is a lowest-common-denominator API which
covers Wpf, Gtk and MonoMac.
MonoDevelop is still based purely on Gtk# 2.x and Gtk+ 2.x.
Generating bindings for Gtk# 3 is a
Hi,
What does it mean? Is GTK# going to be supported in future? I am
afraid it will die and get replaced by xwt or something like that :(
(if that is a case, I hope that mono developers make it really easy to
convert existing gtk# application to xwt, by calling the controls same
and properties as
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 03:28:30PM +0100, Petr Bena wrote:
> Hey, I already posted gtk-sharp-list but given that it's rather dead I
> don't expect any answer soon there.
>
>
> I am using gtk# as a primary graphical framework for at least 2 or
> more of my applications, but I haven't seen many upd
