>---------------------------------------------
>From: John McCawley <jmccawley@worleyco.com>
>To: pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org
>Subject: Re: The future of pgAdminII .....
>Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 12:13:02 -0700
>>
>>Have you considered Fox: http://www.fox-toolkit.org
>>I know you said you have not gotten you head around C++
>>but there is a binding to ruby http://fxruby.sf.net
>>
<snip>
>
>It would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to implement the
>Access migration functionality of PGAdminII off of the Windows platform.
> I am not too well versed in other areas of the tool, but I would
>venture a guess that a lot of the functionality is highly tied to ADO
>and other interfaces that don't necessarily have a competitive workalike
>outside of the ADO/Jet/VB/etc world.
Granted I am not familiar with the Access migration functionality,
but if you mean the Database Migration Plugin, it would be easily
implemented using the DBI interface. The side benifit would
be that it would not be limited to just MSSQL and Jet databases, but
would open it up to other source databases.
>Secondly, and it pains me to say this, I am completely disgusted with
>the state of C/C++ development on Unix.
Me too.
>I've been writing in C for over
>seven years, and have ported two large C++ applications from Windows to
>Linux. In all of this time I have never even remotely warmed up to GNU
>make, autotools etc., nor any of the toolkits such as GTK and the like.
There ok, but the fox toolkit and ruby comes with VC6 project files.
The side benifit would come from the same look and fell on linux and win32.
>It's simply that the current state of cross platform
>C++ toolkits is miserable. I've honestly never heard of Fox, so I can't
>judge it, but my experiences with GTK, QT, WxWindows, et. al. have
>taught me that they are rarely the panacea they claim to be.
I agree, but Fox does seem to me to do a good job of it.
YMMV
Anyway, I thought I would suggest it, but it's your choice.
Take care,
-- Tom.
