And yes, I know there's already a trolltech forum, but no one's answering my http://www.qtforum.org/thread.php?threadid=16541 there. Someone suggested TrollTech's Qt for my project, and looks like it's exactly what I need. However, if you look at the link, I get install problems. In order to get support from TrollTech, I have to buy a support license, but I just want to use the evaluation version to see if it's worth buying. Can anyone point me in the right direction, either with this problem, or where someone can better help?

What is your project? There are other packages out there, such as GTK+, but I don't know exactly why you want to use Qt. Perhaps we could help you find something that works if you gave more information.

Alright, http://www.gidforums.com/t-8970.html is the thread containing the description of my problem and why someone suggested Qt for it. If you have a better suggestion, any help would be would appreciated.

Someone please help :-(

Qt for Windoze is "trial ware" unless you're using MinGW and building non-commercial software. You may want to consider downloading Dev-C++ with MinGW and then the "open source" Qt variant.

As previously mentioned, there are a lot of decent GUI libs available without the hassle. I happen to prefer Qt in a number of ways, but it should not be taken to be the only choice available. Explore your options and see what works for you. Check out V and fltk as possible freeware choices.


:davis:

As stated by :davis:, you can try FLTK(which has a forum section here on GIDForums) and V. You can also look at wxWindows or GTK+, plus MS's Visual programming tools.

So in other words, you were in error to suggest it the first time around. Yet you had the same information about my needs both times. You'll have to pardon me if I find this a bit confusing.

Your needs did not specify that you required no fee-based software. Also, I suggested Qt BEFORE you mentioned Visual C++ or even what platform you were using. I haven't used Qt on Windows very much, so I'm not familiar with the problem that you're having with installing it. It sounds like operator error to me, but I wouldn't know.

You want to write your own word processor? You could just experiment on your own with MFC and a rich text control. You could download the ODF spec and implement some classes that I/O it. There are 9 million ways you can go about getting started. If a simple recommendation of a library choice is going to confuse you, maybe you're not ready to write your own word processing application? If you're not ready to extend an existing open source project, maybe you don't have the necessary skills or you haven't considered the complexities of adding the "normal" features to write a word processing program.

Maybe you'll remember:


Also, I said that it is "trial ware" on Windows. I have no idea why you can't get your 30-day trial to work and install properly. It was very easy for me to do. However, there are MANY alternative GUI libraries. In fact, Qt may even be too advanced for you. How can I possibly tell? Simple C++ may be too advanced for you. Maybe you'll recall:


You still haven't given us any indication of your skills other than that oowriter is too heavy for you. Do you even need/want the software to be platform independent? Basically, all you've done is to give us a list of features that you want...that sound a lot more like a classroom assignment than a requirements document.

Even from your list of "requirements," I would still recommend Qt because it has a very easy-to-use set of XML classes and supports MVC, which is the underlying technology necessary for the WYSIWYG "view" and the Source "view." In Windows-speak, it is called Document/View architecture.

Now, if you're frustrated that my recommendation didn't magically solve all of your problems, too bad. Don't use my recommendations or suggestions. Consider everything that I say to be worthless to you. In fact, you can easily ignore any posts that I offer.

My "error" seems to have been responding at all to your posts. I could write the word processor that you indicate in probably 2-3 hours using Qt on Linux. I could probably write it in a day or so using straight Win32 and some common COM objects...or about a half a day using MFC, but I personally wouldn't use MFC.

But it isn't about how long it would take me to implement your requirements, is it? I probably wouldn't use FLTK, but it is another choice that you could easily choose for the GUI side of it. GTK+ is another choice. V is another choice. Assembly language is another choice. A lot of what makes a recommendation worthwhile to you is going to be based on your skills and so far, I haven't seen anything that indicates that you have even half a clue. So pardon me for ever trying to help. I can see now that anything further would do nothing more than confuse you to an even greater extent. You can also re-read the relevant threads and consider WHEN you decided to finally disclose your platform information and WHEN I posted and get your whole head out of your booty thing about me having "the same information about my needs both times." You act like I owe you something...like I wasted your time pointing you toward Qt. What do you expect? You offered practically nothing at all in your first post, but it seems that what you really want is:

GUIWordProcessorBuilderAndXMLDocumentManagerForWin doze.exe?


...we're here to help, not babysit. If my help wasn't helpful to you, well, you got what you paid for didn't you? What did you expect? Haven't you figured out by now that writing a word processing application isn't all that easy? It sounds like you'd be better off starting out by extending a simple XML editor, but even that sounds like it would be too much for your skills. From all that I've gathered here in the past couple of days, I'd say that you need to start at the bottom and work your skills up to the point where you eventually have a window...and then add "features" one at a time until your needs are met.

Next time someone tries to help you out, rather than pointing the finger at them and saying "in other words, you were in error to suggest it," just say "thank you, but that won't/didn't work out for me very well." Or perhaps, "I really need something a lot simpler."


:davis:

Davis -- is your post serious, or intended to bait me? I ask, because I really can't believe someone would actually say some of those things. Specifically, you criticize me for not posting a full software spec document but rather, summarizing the features that are harder to find. You also act shocked that I wouldn't be currently ready to write a word processor, when finding the tools thereto was the precise reason I asked for help here.

I just wanted to check before I respond again.

I don't think that I am going to be able to communicate effectively with you and vice versa. Did I make an error suggesting Qt as a possible choice for you before I learned your platform? Are you saying that I made an error by doing it because you were unable to get it to install or do what you want?

I am definitely not suggesting that you post a "full software spec document." However, it isn't too much to ask what target you intend and whether you intend multiple platforms, is it? The fact that you didn't state what you intend, suggests a level of novice skill, and you even agreed with me that going through the code to oowriter wasn't something that you were up to doing. No problemo, bubba.

The fact that you're a novice doesn't shock me. What are your expectations for responses? Do you want us to lead you by the hand to the gentle, yellow brick road that will eventuate your desired word processing application? What do you really need? How can any of us possibly offer a reasonable course of action for you based on what you've given so far. If you're unhappy with my responses, block them. I'm only trying to help. Why not give us an assessment of your skills and platform objectives so that we can make a better recommendation if you find Qt is too much for you to handle? I'm not here to ridicule you. Why would you say that I was in error by making the suggestion of Qt unless you felt that I made a mistake based on your inability to install the software and/or it not meeting your needs? I could write the fundamental app in a couple of hours using Qt and Linux. Due to our obvious communication problems, I doubt that I could tell you how to do it in 100 years. I probably don't have that much patience to sit beside you and tell you when to press the semicolon key or listen to you telling me about my "errors" whenever you run into a problem.

If you would have backed up and followed the original order of the posts, you would have seen that I recommended Qt as a possible choice before you stated your platform. I also said that Qt "can" target Windows, UNIX and Mac. I didn't say that it was free, easy to install or simple to learn and understand. It may not be the right tool for your needs. If my recommendation isn't useful to you, say thank you and move on...or say nothing at all. But don't tell me that I was wrong for recommending it based on what I know/knew about you and your needs. As far as I know, you still haven't given any indication of your coding skills in any particular language. Are you comfortable in C++? Are you able to write Windows-based programs with the kind of GUI features found in typical applications? If so, in what languages/API sets? Better, just keep me in the dark about whatever it is that you can or can not do and continue to demand a response on your schedule for something that you haven't explained very clearly and probably without having even read the guidelines for posting help requests. I'll be much more attentive in the future, promise! If any of this lacks the tone of sincerity that you seek, maybe you're reading into it something into it? You're not afraid to be candid about your skills are you? Your first few posts didn't seem to suggest it. If you think that I'm being too harsh on you, consider the prospect of working in the dark about what you want, what platform you want to target and what skills you have to bring to bear on the problem. Maybe EVERY recommendation is wrong for you? However, I'm willing to be more positive and more assertive than that by offering you some really good recommendations--based on what you've input so far. If you don't believe that they are good, great, share with us why so that we (I?) can tailor the recommendation to better meet your needs or drop it and walk away because it doesn't sound as if you're getting the help you say you need. I invite anyone else to (PLEASE!) help you, but so far, I'm the only SUCKA stupid enough to continue trying.


:davis: