What do you use for GUI development in Ubuntu?

[W1GUH]

I'm looking for an IDE similar to C#.net on Windows. Specifically, I want it to:

1) Make placement and sizing of widgets easy and intuitive using a GUI designer.
2) Automatically create callback stubs.

My main gripe about Java was that it didn't do those things. Placement an sizing of widgets was cumbersome, non-intuitive, and had to be done with code. (Puke!!!) But that was a while ago...maybe by now there are better IDE's.

I've tried the Mono C# IDE and it (puke again) was just like the Java IDE that I'd used and hated, so I guess my gripe was really with the IDE and not Java itself. ???

So....to save me the trouble of trying out multiple IDE's across multiple languages, does anyone know of one that does what I want it to do?

[KC2UGV]

You might want to look into the QT library... I don't do much in the way of binary executable GUI design, I'm a web app kind of guy.

In fact, you might want to just start looking into shifting focus into the web app arena. Pretty much anything these days can include an embedded AMP server in case you need a local app.

Unless you're programming games. Whole new arena.

[KC2UGV]

BTW, here's a whole list of IDE's to try. Me, I only use vi or pico. Then again, like I said, I only do BASH scripting and Web app work.

[W1GUH]

Thanks for the suggestion & it seems right on to migrate to web app stuff. Been resisting that, but for no good reasons.

Yea, I saw a multitude of IDE's to try...and If I get lucky I could hit on one I like quickly...but if I'm unlucky.. groan!

And for just random stuff I'm totally command line with vi, but a lot of the other stuff I want to do are far less tedious with a WYSIWYG GUI designer. I know it's just not all that difficult to do it manually in code, but why if you don't have to? I'm all for RAD! There's also Ultra-Edit that's just now available for Linux.

You say pico? You sent me on a search. That name reminded me of TECO. Some computer folklore....

TECO had a version for CRT's call either VT or DT, it's been so long I forget which, and both were very powerful programs in their own right. Used it mostly on a PDP-10. (Sigh..I miss TOPS-10) That had a lot of features that I dearly miss on anything since, like easy macros for doing stuff automatically. In fact, there was a story about a guy who wrote a whole BASIC interpreter in editor code so you could run BASIC programs in the editor window. Yea, he had too much time on his hands! :lol:

I was hoping to find an emulator of that for linux, but so far, no such luck.

[n2ize]

I generally use Qt.

[KC2UGV]

... In fact, there was a story about a guy who wrote a whole BASIC interpreter in editor code so you could run BASIC programs in the editor window. Yea, he had too much time on his hands! :lol:

I was hoping to find an emulator of that for linux, but so far, no such luck.


Sounds like Emacs :) I heard Emacs OS was coming out soon :rofl:

[n2ize]

Thanks for the suggestion & it seems right on to migrate to web app stuff. Been resisting that, but for no good reasons.

Yea, I saw a multitude of IDE's to try...and If I get lucky I could hit on one I like quickly...but if I'm unlucky.. groan!

And for just random stuff I'm totally command line with vi, but a lot of the other stuff I want to do are far less tedious with a WYSIWYG GUI designer. I know it's just not all that difficult to do it manually in code, but why if you don't have to? I'm all for RAD! There's also Ultra-Edit that's just now available for Linux.

You say pico? You sent me on a search. That name reminded me of TECO. Some computer folklore....

TECO had a version for CRT's call either VT or DT, it's been so long I forget which, and both were very powerful programs in their own right. Used it mostly on a PDP-10. (Sigh..I miss TOPS-10) That had a lot of features that I dearly miss on anything since, like easy macros for doing stuff automatically. In fact, there was a story about a guy who wrote a whole BASIC interpreter in editor code so you could run BASIC programs in the editor window. Yea, he had too much time on his hands! :lol:

I was hoping to find an emulator of that for linux, but so far, no such luck.

Probably your best result is to leave the antiquated and archaic langauges, like , C, C++, Perl, Lisp, etc. and the archaic editors, like vi, emacs, etc.. behind and graduate to web apps. These days just about anything you can do as a web app. Focus on things and web apps. It's faster, easier, lighter, state of the art and the way to go these days.

[KC2UGV]

Probably your best result is to leave the antiquated and archaic langauges, like , C, C++, Perl, Lisp, etc. and the archaic editors, like vi, emacs, etc.. behind and graduate to web apps. These days just about anything you can do as a web app. Focus on things and web apps. It's faster, easier, lighter, state of the art and the way to go these days.


Them are fighting words :geek:

Why would you consider Emacs and Vi to be archaic? I mean, they are very efficient when used for coding projects. Emacs even has a plugin to do code checkout, syntax highlighting, code suggesting, et al. Same with Vi(m)...

I use Vi to this day when on *nix. And, I prefer to do coding on *nix.

[n2ize]

Probably your best result is to leave the antiquated and archaic langauges, like , C, C++, Perl, Lisp, etc. and the archaic editors, like vi, emacs, etc.. behind and graduate to web apps. These days just about anything you can do as a web app. Focus on things and web apps. It's faster, easier, lighter, state of the art and the way to go these days.


Them are fighting words :geek:

Why would you consider Emacs and Vi to be archaic? I mean, they are very efficient when used for coding projects. Emacs even has a plugin to do code checkout, syntax highlighting, code suggesting, et al. Same with Vi(m)...

I use Vi to this day when on *nix. And, I prefer to do coding on *nix.

Because for most noobs emacs and vi are not intuitive enough. People want to dive right in and start coding. They don;t want to spend time reading and learning how to use the editor. For those (old school types) who have been into this stuff for a while and have the patience and know how, all the things I put on my "don't do list" are fine. Matter of fact they can even help make a person more productive. However, they are not always best for the noob.

My main editor these days is the pencil and paper. :) It will be a long time before they come up with anything as versatile.

[W1GUH]

I generally use Qt.

Thanks, John....

I was about to go for that but wanted to wait to find out if it's what I'm looking for, as specified in this thread about, briefly, how much GUI code it'll write for you. Does it do that? This is a "risk reduction" effort on my part. As mentioned I'm trying to avoid the time-sink nature of "get a package...learn enough about it to try to use it...try to use it...learn more about the questions that attempt brought up...try it again"). That can sometimes feel like I'm caught in an infinite loop!

Thanks again.

[n2ize]

I generally use Qt.

Thanks, John....

I was about to go for that but wanted to wait to find out if it's what I'm looking for, as specified in this thread about, briefly, how much GUI code it'll write for you. Does it do that? This is a "risk reduction" effort on my part. As mentioned I'm trying to avoid the time-sink nature of "get a package...learn enough about it to try to use it...try to use it...learn more about the questions that attempt brought up...try it again"). That can sometimes feel like I'm caught in an infinite loop!

Thanks again.

Well, Qt is pretty powerful and can do almost anything. There's lots of stuff written in Qt including KDE and the Opera browser. It comes bundled with Linux (or at least with Fedora Linux). You can download it directly and install it or, pull it off the repositories. It's signal/slot mechanism for connecting actions and behaviors is quite easy to use (almost intuitive). It comes bundled with full well written documentation including tutorials (you can learn to use it just from it's own documentation). It also comes bundled with a graphical designer for rapid GUI development... most of the boilerplate code and signal/slot connection code is automatically generated and tested via the graphical designer. When I first tried it I was designing simple GUI apps within an hour and more complex stuff within a day or two, The learning curve is quite rapid and the library itself quite powerful.

[W1GUH]

Thanks for the suggestion & it seems right on to migrate to web app stuff. Been resisting that, but for no good reasons.

Yea, I saw a multitude of IDE's to try...and If I get lucky I could hit on one I like quickly...but if I'm unlucky.. groan!

And for just random stuff I'm totally command line with vi, but a lot of the other stuff I want to do are far less tedious with a WYSIWYG GUI designer. I know it's just not all that difficult to do it manually in code, but why if you don't have to? I'm all for RAD! There's also Ultra-Edit that's just now available for Linux.

You say pico? You sent me on a search. That name reminded me of TECO. Some computer folklore....

TECO had a version for CRT's call either VT or DT, it's been so long I forget which, and both were very powerful programs in their own right. Used it mostly on a PDP-10. (Sigh..I miss TOPS-10) That had a lot of features that I dearly miss on anything since, like easy macros for doing stuff automatically. In fact, there was a story about a guy who wrote a whole BASIC interpreter in editor code so you could run BASIC programs in the editor window. Yea, he had too much time on his hands! :lol:

I was hoping to find an emulator of that for linux, but so far, no such luck.

Probably your best result is to leave the antiquated and archaic langauges, like , C, C++, Perl, Lisp, etc. and the archaic editors, like vi, emacs, etc.. behind and graduate to web apps. These days just about anything you can do as a web app. Focus on things and web apps. It's faster, easier, lighter, state of the art and the way to go these days.

Not fightin' words to me...just good sage advice. And read my comments about Qt elsewhere...it'll probably be the next thing to try.

Howver, "I'd like to say a word for the cow... no, vi", (Thanks, Rogers and Hammarstein!). Yep, it's archiac. Yep it has a steep learning curve. Yep, you can do major damage to a file with a single keystroke. And, yep, I'd never have tackled it if I wasn't forced to on a job where all I had was command line unix and it was the only viable editor.

BUT....

Once the painful learning experience is under one's belt, it's still the most efficient and productive [edit] (where approprite) [end edit] editor out there for a few reasons.

1) It doesn't require 3 hands to operate; your hands never leave the keyboard. I HATE lifting my right arm to go to the mouse over and over and ovear.

2) It's there on every unix/linus system I've ever used. The knowledge of its use appears to be 100% portable from implementation to implementation. And it's UI remains stable.

3) It comes up and closes quickly.

But I don't use it for development of large blocks of code. The built-in stuff in the IDE's make the required use of the "third hand" acceptable....and the other features, like code-hiding, refactoring, etc. make 'em far more appropriate. And, should I want to, I could always use the "accelerator" keys more and reduce the number of times a mouse is required.

But for under-the-gun "gotta make it work" situations in C or C++...maybe others that I haven't had to use yet....nothing beats it for how quick it is to vi xxxx.c;(edit edit edit);<esc>wq;cc xxx.c;./a.out!

Or, !v;(edit);!c;./a.out

Oh....(toungue firmly in my cheek)...I call that a subset of geek-speak. What would you prefer I call it?

Just bustin!

[W1GUH]

I generally use Qt.

Thanks, John....

I was about to go for that but wanted to wait to find out if it's what I'm looking for, as specified in this thread about, briefly, how much GUI code it'll write for you. Does it do that? This is a "risk reduction" effort on my part. As mentioned I'm trying to avoid the time-sink nature of "get a package...learn enough about it to try to use it...try to use it...learn more about the questions that attempt brought up...try it again"). That can sometimes feel like I'm caught in an infinite loop!

Thanks again.

Well, Qt is pretty powerful and can do almost anything. There's lots of stuff written in Qt including KDE and the Opera browser. It comes bundled with Linux (or at least with Fedora Linux). You can download it directly and install it or, pull it off the repositories. It's signal/slot mechanism for connecting actions and behaviors is quite easy to use (almost intuitive). It comes bundled with full well written documentation including tutorials (you can learn to use it just from it's own documentation). It also comes bundled with a graphical designer for rapid GUI development... most of the boilerplate code and signal/slot connection code is automatically generated and tested via the graphical designer. When I first tried it I was designing simple GUI apps within an hour and more complex stuff within a day or two, The learning curve is quite rapid and the library itself quite powerful.

Thanks...I'll give a whirl this weekend. I can get it from the Ubuntu Software center (means it's probably an easy install).

[W4GPL]

Because for most noobs emacs and vi are not intuitive enough. People want to dive right in and start coding. They don;t want to spend time reading and learning how to use the editor. For those (old school types) who have been into this stuff for a while and have the patience and know how, all the things I put on my "don't do list" are fine. Matter of fact they can even help make a person more productive. However, they are not always best for the noob.It takes maybe all of 20 minutes to get up to speed with most of the main function of vi/vim. Newbies see it and immediately dismiss it because it's not like Windows Notepad. :P

[n2ize]

Because for most noobs emacs and vi are not intuitive enough. People want to dive right in and start coding. They don;t want to spend time reading and learning how to use the editor. For those (old school types) who have been into this stuff for a while and have the patience and know how, all the things I put on my "don't do list" are fine. Matter of fact they can even help make a person more productive. However, they are not always best for the noob.It takes maybe all of 20 minutes to get up to speed with most of the main function of vi/vim. Newbies see it and immediately dismiss it because it's not like Windows Notepad. :P

That's exactly what I mean. It doesn't take long to get up to a basic working speed with vim or emacs. And the nice thing about both is that you can edit very fast and efficiently with both. Unfortunately a lot of noobs don't seem to want to spend the 10 - 20 minutes required to get the basics.

[W1GUH]

Because for most noobs emacs and vi are not intuitive enough. People want to dive right in and start coding. They don;t want to spend time reading and learning how to use the editor. For those (old school types) who have been into this stuff for a while and have the patience and know how, all the things I put on my "don't do list" are fine. Matter of fact they can even help make a person more productive. However, they are not always best for the noob.It takes maybe all of 20 minutes to get up to speed with most of the main function of vi/vim. Newbies see it and immediately dismiss it because it's not like Windows Notepad. :P

That's exactly what I mean. It doesn't take long to get up to a basic working speed with vim or emacs. And the nice thing about both is that you can edit very fast and efficiently with both. Unfortunately a lot of noobs don't seem to want to spend the 10 - 20 minutes required to get the basics.

In helps (and maybe is necessary) to have a guru in the lab to hold your hand when entering the perilous depths of vi!

[W4GPL]

vimtutorial

Just run that -- you'll be damn near an expert in 20 minutes.

[W1GUH]

Tried Qt over the weekend. Got to where I learned that it's IDE wants to use "g++", which I don't have installed yet, and put it all on hold while I re-charged my patience. :) (I'd just lost a bunch of time trying to use an obselete tutorial I'd found on the web.)

So, this morning, after resting up and re-evaluating the stituation, I'll be going back to Qt and installing "g++" (Unless anyone knows a reason not to.)

The package looks like a good one, and there's much going for it, so I'll continue to slog through all the time-consuming stuff to get it, and my mind, set-up to actually do useful things with it. Makes me appreciate what admins do at work all the time! Here's to you guys... :cheers:

I must be in a good mood. I'm seeing all the linux/unix stuff that's time-consuming to get through as a "nice feature" and not a drawback. Specifically, it's a LOT more fun than the Windows practice of giving you a pop-up that says. "Fatal error. You can never run this program. And we won't tell you why. You're F@#$%%$$!!!".

At least with Linux you get some sort of clue about what's wrong!

Cheers! :cheers:

[KC2UGV]

Nah, g++ is needed anyways, since you plan on doing devel work. Most distros these days don't install g++, only the libs since most people don't make --> make clean --> make install anymore :)

[W1GUH]

Nah, g++ is needed anyways, since you plan on doing devel work. Most distros these days don't install g++, only the libs since most people don't make --> make clean --> make install anymore :)

Thanks, Corey. Just to make sure...your "Nah" is shorthand for "Nah, there's no problemm installing G++?"

[KC2UGV]

Correct. No problems installing it. It used to be there by default :)

[W1GUH]

Correct. No problems installing it. It used to be there by default :)

Yea, it's one of those the results in an invitation to install it, rather than a simple "not found."
Thanks!

[n2ize]

Tried Qt over the weekend. Got to where I learned that it's IDE wants to use "g++", which I don't have installed yet, and put it all on hold while I re-charged my patience. :) (I'd just lost a bunch of time trying to use an obselete tutorial I'd found on the web.)

So, this morning, after resting up and re-evaluating the stituation, I'll be going back to Qt and installing "g++" (Unless anyone knows a reason not to.)

The package looks like a good one, and there's much going for it, so I'll continue to slog through all the time-consuming stuff to get it, and my mind, set-up to actually do useful things with it. Makes me appreciate what admins do at work all the time! Here's to you guys... :cheers:

I must be in a good mood. I'm seeing all the linux/unix stuff that's time-consuming to get through as a "nice feature" and not a drawback. Specifically, it's a LOT more fun than the Windows practice of giving you a pop-up that says. "Fatal error. You can never run this program. And we won't tell you why. You're F@#$%%$$!!!".

At least with Linux you get some sort of clue about what's wrong!

Cheers! :cheers:

Qt is a very powerful GUi development library. The tutorial that comes bundled with you version of Qt should be adequate for learning how to use it. Basically you have to get used to the signal/slot mechanism fopr connecting events with actions... and the moc (meta object compiler) Both are real easy to understand and use.

If you need any additional instructional documentation drop me a PM. I can help you out.

Yes, if you plan to do any serious development on a Linux system you should install all the GNU development tools like

gcc - the CNU C compiler
g++ - the GNU C++ compiler
as - the GNU assembler,
make
automake, autoconf, etc....

On Fedora you have the option to include these during the installation. However you can always install them later on from the repositories via yum (or whatever method Ubuntu might use). I assume you are using Ubuntu.

[W1GUH]

Tried Qt over the weekend. Got to where I learned that it's IDE wants to use "g++", which I don't have installed yet, and put it all on hold while I re-charged my patience. :) (I'd just lost a bunch of time trying to use an obselete tutorial I'd found on the web.)

So, this morning, after resting up and re-evaluating the stituation, I'll be going back to Qt and installing "g++" (Unless anyone knows a reason not to.)

The package looks like a good one, and there's much going for it, so I'll continue to slog through all the time-consuming stuff to get it, and my mind, set-up to actually do useful things with it. Makes me appreciate what admins do at work all the time! Here's to you guys... :cheers:

I must be in a good mood. I'm seeing all the linux/unix stuff that's time-consuming to get through as a "nice feature" and not a drawback. Specifically, it's a LOT more fun than the Windows practice of giving you a pop-up that says. "Fatal error. You can never run this program. And we won't tell you why. You're F@#$%%$$!!!".

At least with Linux you get some sort of clue about what's wrong!

Cheers! :cheers:

Qt is a very powerful GUi development library. The tutorial that comes bundled with you version of Qt should be adequate for learning how to use it. Basically you have to get used to the signal/slot mechanism fopr connecting events with actions... and the moc (meta object compiler) Both are real easy to understand and use.

If you need any additional instructional documentation drop me a PM. I can help you out.

Yes, if you plan to do any serious development on a Linux system you should install all the GNU development tools like

gcc - the CNU C compiler
g++ - the GNU C++ compiler
as - the GNU assembler,
make
automake, autoconf, etc....

On Fedora you have the option to include these during the installation. However you can always install them later on from the repositories via yum (or whatever method Ubuntu might use). I assume you are using Ubuntu.

Yes, and there the option to install happens when you try to invoke it.

I see this is something other than what i was really looking for, but it just might what I was reallly looking for, only I didn't know it. Thanks! As my time and patience allow I'll be exploring!

[n2ize]

Tried Qt over the weekend. Got to where I learned that it's IDE wants to use "g++", which I don't have installed yet, and put it all on hold while I re-charged my patience. :) (I'd just lost a bunch of time trying to use an obselete tutorial I'd found on the web.)

So, this morning, after resting up and re-evaluating the stituation, I'll be going back to Qt and installing "g++" (Unless anyone knows a reason not to.)

The package looks like a good one, and there's much going for it, so I'll continue to slog through all the time-consuming stuff to get it, and my mind, set-up to actually do useful things with it. Makes me appreciate what admins do at work all the time! Here's to you guys... :cheers:

I must be in a good mood. I'm seeing all the linux/unix stuff that's time-consuming to get through as a "nice feature" and not a drawback. Specifically, it's a LOT more fun than the Windows practice of giving you a pop-up that says. "Fatal error. You can never run this program. And we won't tell you why. You're F@#$%%$$!!!".

At least with Linux you get some sort of clue about what's wrong!

Cheers! :cheers:

Qt is a very powerful GUi development library. The tutorial that comes bundled with you version of Qt should be adequate for learning how to use it. Basically you have to get used to the signal/slot mechanism fopr connecting events with actions... and the moc (meta object compiler) Both are real easy to understand and use.

If you need any additional instructional documentation drop me a PM. I can help you out.

Yes, if you plan to do any serious development on a Linux system you should install all the GNU development tools like

gcc - the CNU C compiler
g++ - the GNU C++ compiler
as - the GNU assembler,
make
automake, autoconf, etc....

On Fedora you have the option to include these during the installation. However you can always install them later on from the repositories via yum (or whatever method Ubuntu might use). I assume you are using Ubuntu.

Yes, and there the option to install happens when you try to invoke it.

I see this is something other than what i was really looking for, but it just might what I was reallly looking for, only I didn't know it. Thanks! As my time and patience allow I'll be exploring!

Also, for successful development work you'll need a VT100 terminal with a lot of coffee stains and cigarette burns on the keyboard. :)

[W1GUH]

VT-100? Maybe...but let's face it, the best is a PDP-11 with no disk drive and an ASR-33. After all, you can repair a paper tape! Or better yet, hand key in the program with the piano keys. Now there's a real man's development environment. And it saves the keyboard from cigarette burns. You can go to the break room while the tape reads.

Made good progress last night. Found the appropriate tutorials in the help files and, more importantly, everything worked...managed to compile and run one of the examples and I'm starting to get a feel for the enviroment.

Thanks for everything!

[KC2UGV]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/real_programmers.png

[n2ize]

VT-100? Maybe...but let's face it, the best is a PDP-11 with no disk drive and an ASR-33. After all, you can repair a paper tape! Or better yet, hand key in the program with the piano keys. Now there's a real man's development environment. And it saves the keyboard from cigarette burns. You can go to the break room while the tape reads.

Made good progress last night. Found the appropriate tutorials in the help files and, more importantly, everything worked...managed to compile and run one of the examples and I'm starting to get a feel for the enviroment.

Thanks for everything!

Paper tape will probably outlast magnetic tape and disks and possibly even optical discs.
When I was in school we had the VT100 terminals and also a couple of Tektronix phosphor terminals. The computer we used was a DEC 20 (which I believe is basically a PDP-10) and was running under the TOPS 20 operating system. All the terminals that the "experts" used all had cigarette burns on and around the keyboard. It got to the point where I didn't feel comfortable using a terminal with no cigarette burns.,

Even now I use a very heavy late 1980's IBM keyboard. The kind where the keys actually click when you press them. I love this keyboard. Unfortunately it doesn't have any cigarette marks. Of course I can fix that :mrgreen: :mrgreen:


Yeah, Qt is very powerful yet at the same time quite easy to learn. I've gotten a bit rusty in it since I haven't used it in a while. I need to brush up on it a bit. Also, what is reallty nice is the designer. Using the WYSIWYG designer GUI you can lay out your widgets , connect your basic signals and slots and it automatically generates most of the boilerplate code for you automatically. If you follow the tutorials in the documentation it will eventually explain how the designer works.

[W1GUH]

Oh, and I forgot to add....


If you never programmed in assembly language, or better yet, machine code, you ain't programmed at all! :twisted: :stirpot:

I especially like that it's C++ based (but without the horrors of Visual C++ (shudder) )....haven't used it in years and I'm rusty; been looking for a reason to brush up on it.

Did you read my PM about the recommended book. It's too expensive to buy blind, and the one review isn't too good.

Great cartoon, 'UGV.

[kf0rt]

Oh, and I forgot to add....


If you never programmed in assembly language, or better yet, machine code, you ain't programmed at all! :twisted: :stirpot:


Damn straight, brotha. :snicker: :clap:

mov al,[cut5_59] ;always thread feed home
push ax
mov [cut5_59],1
;prevent boring lockout
mov [feed_ctr],0 ;setup flags
mov [feed_state],0
mov [feed_btb],-1
mov dx,HOME_SENSOR ;IF INP(HOME_SENSOR) & FIndex_Bit )
in al,dx
test al,findex_bit ; sensor blocked?
jz fb_10 ; yes, jump

[n2ize]

Oh, and I forgot to add....


If you never programmed in assembly language, or better yet, machine code, you ain't programmed at all! :twisted: :stirpot:

I especially like that it's C++ based (but without the horrors of Visual C++ (shudder) )....haven't used it in years and I'm rusty; been looking for a reason to brush up on it.

Did you read my PM about the recommended book. It's too expensive to buy blind, and the one review isn't too good.

Great cartoon, 'UGV.

I've programmed in assembly. I actually enjoy it. However, I'm sort of rusty at the moment being I haven't done any assembly for the past year or so. But I wrote myself a nice tutorial that will bring me back up to speed pretty quick. Programming directly in assembly may not be the most efficient way to program these days but, it is still advantageous to learn. It gives you a better understanding of what goes on under the hood, how memory is addressed, how stack space is used, how registers are used, how floating point arithmetic is handled, how numeric values are represented, how functions are called. It gives you a better understanding of how higher level languages work and makes it a lot easier to debug programs written in assembly and higher level languages, Many people scoff at programming in assembly these days but, I hold fast to the notion that an understanding of assembly is advantageous regardless of what language you might use. Much the same way that knowing how to analyse a problem and design an efficient algorithm is invaluable, regardless of the language that you implement.

[W1GUH]

Just discovered that the Qt package I've got has a built-in link to download the textbook for free. In one of the tutorials (which you can get to by opening any of them and then searching for "books") there's some words about the book they recommend, followed by something like (link) "available for download here." That directly downloads the complete book.

I also seem to keep hearing that Qt is the standard for independant QUI development.

I also downloaded the Qt package for windows. Guess it's OK, but it doesn't add the proper locations for PATH.