[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Deprecating FLTK toolkit

From: Michael D Godfrey
Subject: Re: Deprecating FLTK toolkit
Date: Wed, 8 Nov 2017 17:42:48 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0

On 11/08/2017 04:58 PM, Rik wrote:
On 11/08/2017 08:45 AM, Daniel J Sebald wrote:

Using that same argument, we should also get rid of the gnuplot interface.
The overriding reason for gnuplot toolkit is *quality* graphics output.
If Octave loses a means to generate quality graphics that can be used in
publications (including true vector based outputs), it's losing a big
advantage to Matlab or some other data processing app.  We still get
occasional bug reports for gnuplot toolkit, which is an indication that
people are using it.  But the bugs certainly aren't at a frequency which
is causing many programmers all sorts of consternation and using up
resources that can be used elsewhere.

I might have been too subtle.  I don't think it is a good idea to get rid
of gnuplot, not just yet anyways.  I was trying to argue that the logical
extension of getting rid of one toolkit because of manpower issues, is to
get rid of *all* toolkits save for the one selected for continuing
development.  In this case, I don't feel we can get rid of FLTK because Qt
is still not 100% reliable and 100% capable of doing everything that a
graphics toolkit needs to do.


It may be worth adding that Matlab does not use gnuplot. Many people use
Matlab plots for publication. However, I do not
find that their plot quality is all that good, but better than gnuplot.




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]