PCSX2 Documentation/Measuring the Benefits of wxWidgets: Difference between revisions

PCSX2 Documentation/Measuring the Benefits of wxWidgets (view source)

Revision as of 18:28, 5 April 2015

32 bytes added , 5 April 2015

no edit summary

Ngng

Bureaucrats, ninja, Administrators

67,565

edits

Revision as of 17:49, 5 April 2015 (view source) Ngng (talk \| contribs) m (Ngng moved page Measuring the Benefits of wxWidgets to PCSX2 Documentation/Measuring the Benefits of wxWidgets without leaving a redirect) ← Older edit		Revision as of 18:28, 5 April 2015 (view source) Ngng (talk \| contribs) No edit summary Newer edit →
Line 32:		Line 32:

	In all the wxWidgets experience so far has been a decent one. There are a few annoyances, but those tend to be more the fault of cross-platform considerations (some things are not supported well under Linux, or vice versa), or more commonly due to limitations and design flaws in the C++ language itself rather than of wxWidgets (in particular, C/C++ make it especially difficult to work with unicode strings in a 'nice' way). For the most part wx tries to model itself in the image of the .NET Framework and Java Framework API designs, which are good designs to follow.		In all the wxWidgets experience so far has been a decent one. There are a few annoyances, but those tend to be more the fault of cross-platform considerations (some things are not supported well under Linux, or vice versa), or more commonly due to limitations and design flaws in the C++ language itself rather than of wxWidgets (in particular, C/C++ make it especially difficult to work with unicode strings in a 'nice' way). For the most part wx tries to model itself in the image of the .NET Framework and Java Framework API designs, which are good designs to follow.

			{{PCSX2 Documentation Navbox}}