[Lazarus] Is Lazarus project in a downward spiral?

[Hans-Peter Diettrich]

Michael Van Canneyt schrieb:

> With the added downside that it's far from certain that you'll ever be 
> able to make fpGUI look native on all platforms: one of
> its explicit design goals was to look exactly the same on all platforms, 
> which is contrary to the Lazarus design goal.

There is nothing bad about an widgetset with the same look&feel on all 
platforms. IMO only its *use* is restricted to specific applications.


> There is also simply a strategic reason for not using fpGUI:
> 
> The GTK/Qt toolkits are tried and tested, because they a) Are used 
> widely since years.
> b) have a larger development group.
> compare this to fpGUI which is essentially a one-man show. If Graeme for 
> some reason drops out (gods forbid): bye-bye fpGUI.

ACK. An fpGUI with *native* look&feel IMO runs into the same problems as 
any other multi-platform widgetset - hardly feasable and maintainable 
with evolving platforms and widgetsets.

> None of this means that I think fpGUI is bad (I have used it), or that 
> making a LCL widgetset for fpGUI (next to the others)
> is in itself a bad idea. But basing Lazarus' LCL on it: No, thank you.

IMO just the IDE were a good example for an application that *should* 
look&feel almost the same on multiple platforms, to multi-platform 
application developers. The IDE developers should be freed from 
widgetset/component specific problems.

DoDi