[Gllug] Application development across all platforms

tet at accucard.com tet at accucard.com
Fri Jan 4 09:58:52 UTC 2002


>The difficulty I have it that the interface is relatively complex and I
>do not think would migrate to HTML easily.  

Correct. HTML is a horrible interface for anything other than simple
form filling. Some of the more complex widgets found in a typical
application (such as tabbed panes) can be easily similuted. Others
(such as slider bars or tree widgets) can only be achieved with some
pretty nasty javascript.

>The other alternative is do the interface in java.

A good choice with a few caveats. If you have control of the end users
(i.e., if the only people using it are in an office where you control
the desktop), then go for it. Otherwise, expect a whole world of pain.
If you insist on a 1.3 JVM as a minimum requirement, you're making life
easy for yourself, but at the same time, remember that Netscape 4 users
only have a 1.1 JVM, and IE6 users don't have a JVM at all. Both of these
groups would have to wait for a ~15MB plugin download before they could
use your site (hint: most will just go elsewhere). This is why we've
been converting our customer facing Java applets to HTML/Javascript.
The stupid thing is, most of ours are just plain form filling anyway, 
so why it was in Java in the first place is a bit of a mystery...

>I have also been looking at QT too as I read an article describing the
>coding of Hancom office in QT.  Allegedly it only took 30 minutes to
>alter the windows code to be able to recompile for Linux.

1. Don't believe that 30 minute quote
2. That will have assumed the application was initially written in C++,
   not VB.

Personally, I don't like Qt at all, but many others swear by it. But
if you do take that route, be aware that you're looking at a complete
rewrite, not just a port with some user interface changes.

Tet

-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at linux.co.uk
http://list.ftech.net/mailman/listinfo/gllug




More information about the GLLUG mailing list