cadaver wrote:I believe to have commented this before, but it doesn't hurt to reiterate.
If the editor is a separate project, using Qt fits very well. You'd only need solid setup instructions per platform, and the user could build or download Qt themselves and just ensure it's available for the project's CMake. Very likely you'd only ever use Qt + editor on desktops in that case.
As part of Urho repo or build itself, we have quite strong principles of automatic dependency build (and even including them in the source repo, since everything used so far is small). There Qt doesn't fit that well, or would require much more ninja magic.
Eugene wrote:- Harder to use with executable project
Eugene wrote:- Separate repo is worse than builtin
it should be done in a way that would make that burden lighter for him.
Victor wrote:One purpose I feel the editor solves very well, for me at least, is how to use Urho's UI to do various things. It's essentially an advanced example.
Victor wrote:At the end of the day however, I see cadaver as being the person who would have to shoulder the burden of maintaining the editor, so it should be done in a way that would make that burden lighter for him.
TheSHEEEP wrote:That's true. And I like the UI as it enables a user to get started rather quickly.
It's big downside is scope, though. It can't (and IMO wasn't designed to) and shouldn't compete with top-notch UIs out there, like Scaleform/Noesis/CEGUI*/etc. (I'll be using libcef personally).
For example, if you need a UI that scales perfectly with resolution, you'll have to look at alternatives.
TheSHEEEP wrote:To hide from other programmers that he did not write an entire interface library for every platform himself?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests