Advanced GUI
-
Is there any GUI-library that is not sitting on the top of MFC, but offers the same functionality like BCGSoft? :) Zack
I think you'll find not, most of these libraries are based on MFC, because MFC makes them easier to write, plus most people use MFC anyhow. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
-
Hi, I just want to get a good advise - I know a lot of smart people are participating in this forum. We're starting a new project that requires advanced user interface (MFC based, of course). What products would you advise? I found a few companies/products on this market - Stingray, Dundas, CodeJock and BCGSoft (all these companies have ads here). But who is the best? Whose support is better? What product has more features and higher quality? And another important thing - the future. Is anyone going to implement VS.NET-like interface with all these sliding windows and so on (rumors, please:) )? Thank you, Olga
I would definitely recommend the BCGSoft library for the following reasons:
- Inexpensiveness - $300. It is way below any of the other libraries
- The support really shines - you usually have an answer to you quesiton within 24 hours when posted in their forums
- frequently updated, without breaking compatibility
- It conforms to the latest UI trends
- Free to use for development of freeware
- Fairly weel documented - many samples - AppWizard
I know I sound like a TV shop ad, but these guys deserve all the support they can get. I have not tried Dundas, but Stingray sucks big-time and is extremely expensive. CodeJock looks OK, but it seems that there are no real effort put into developing further. I could be wrong, though. Unlike many of the other responses, I would not recommend that you write your own implementation of these features. It is just not cost-effective! Christian Skovdal Andersen "I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel." -Edmund, Blackadder III
-
I would definitely recommend the BCGSoft library for the following reasons:
- Inexpensiveness - $300. It is way below any of the other libraries
- The support really shines - you usually have an answer to you quesiton within 24 hours when posted in their forums
- frequently updated, without breaking compatibility
- It conforms to the latest UI trends
- Free to use for development of freeware
- Fairly weel documented - many samples - AppWizard
I know I sound like a TV shop ad, but these guys deserve all the support they can get. I have not tried Dundas, but Stingray sucks big-time and is extremely expensive. CodeJock looks OK, but it seems that there are no real effort put into developing further. I could be wrong, though. Unlike many of the other responses, I would not recommend that you write your own implementation of these features. It is just not cost-effective! Christian Skovdal Andersen "I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel." -Edmund, Blackadder III
Hmmm You say its free for developing freeware. They say that on their web site too... But I once requested a freeware version for a freeware project I was working on and got no response... Later I tried again for a shareware license and got an auto-reply in a minute's time. You sure, they really have that freeware-feature for freeware-developers??? Nish
-
I would definitely recommend the BCGSoft library for the following reasons:
- Inexpensiveness - $300. It is way below any of the other libraries
- The support really shines - you usually have an answer to you quesiton within 24 hours when posted in their forums
- frequently updated, without breaking compatibility
- It conforms to the latest UI trends
- Free to use for development of freeware
- Fairly weel documented - many samples - AppWizard
I know I sound like a TV shop ad, but these guys deserve all the support they can get. I have not tried Dundas, but Stingray sucks big-time and is extremely expensive. CodeJock looks OK, but it seems that there are no real effort put into developing further. I could be wrong, though. Unlike many of the other responses, I would not recommend that you write your own implementation of these features. It is just not cost-effective! Christian Skovdal Andersen "I have a plan so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel." -Edmund, Blackadder III
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that BCGSoft simply supplies the MS Office look and feel. I can see where that might be very valuable for many apps, but I don't see it as being that big of a deal for most. I certainly don't think the customers of the product line I currently work on would be greatly impressed by such a change. Also, regardless of who's product you go with, sooner of later the typical programmer is going to be confronted with the need to build a custom control. If they do not know how to do it, the cost effectiveness of using such a tool kit will be lost on the development of a single in-house control. It could be argued that allowing programmers to properly learn their craft by doing as much of such work as possible in house will ultimately be more cost effective than buying a new tool set for each unique problem they are confronted with. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that BCGSoft simply supplies the MS Office look and feel. I can see where that might be very valuable for many apps, but I don't see it as being that big of a deal for most. I certainly don't think the customers of the product line I currently work on would be greatly impressed by such a change. Also, regardless of who's product you go with, sooner of later the typical programmer is going to be confronted with the need to build a custom control. If they do not know how to do it, the cost effectiveness of using such a tool kit will be lost on the development of a single in-house control. It could be argued that allowing programmers to properly learn their craft by doing as much of such work as possible in house will ultimately be more cost effective than buying a new tool set for each unique problem they are confronted with. "But, daddy, that was back in the hippie ages..." My twelve year old son - winning the argument. "Stan, you are an intelligent guy who responds in meaningful ways" Paul Watson 16/10/01
>Also, regardless of who's product you go with, sooner of later the typical programmer is going >to be confronted with the need to build a custom control. If they do not know how to do it, the >cost effectiveness of using such a tool kit will be lost on the development of a single in-house >control. It could be argued that allowing programmers to properly learn their craft by doing as >much of such work as possible in house will ultimately be more cost effective than buying a new >tool set for each unique problem they are confronted with. It is a difficult balance to achieve. I try to avoid reinventing the wheel where possible. I prefer spending time working on my own product's core code rather than writing code that somebody else has already done. However there are times when I have to write my own custom control and that is when my lack of knowledge in this area really shows. I haven't got the money to spend on UI toolkits, which is why Code Project is such a great resource for me. It provides me with most of the UI stuff that I'll ever need to use. If I do need to write that custom control, I have a wealth of knowledge and experience available via the tutorials and the forums. Michael :-)
-
Hmmm You say its free for developing freeware. They say that on their web site too... But I once requested a freeware version for a freeware project I was working on and got no response... Later I tried again for a shareware license and got an auto-reply in a minute's time. You sure, they really have that freeware-feature for freeware-developers??? Nish
Nish, we don't have separate versions for the freeware and shareware developers. > Later I tried again for a shareware license and got an auto-reply in a > minute's time. You submitted both requests in the same time. Because you wrote "I also develop shareware. For that I have submitted a separate request in the Shareware Developer's registration page" in the Freeware Registration request form, we assumed that you will order a shareware version with discounted price and use it in your both freeware and shareware products. Regards, Stas Levin BCGSoft Ltd. http://www.bcgsoft.com
-
Hi, I just want to get a good advise - I know a lot of smart people are participating in this forum. We're starting a new project that requires advanced user interface (MFC based, of course). What products would you advise? I found a few companies/products on this market - Stingray, Dundas, CodeJock and BCGSoft (all these companies have ads here). But who is the best? Whose support is better? What product has more features and higher quality? And another important thing - the future. Is anyone going to implement VS.NET-like interface with all these sliding windows and so on (rumors, please:) )? Thank you, Olga
I'll tell you which one to ignore - Stingray. The rest of them are viable, and depends on a) How much money you have to spend b) Your ability to predict the future Dundas sponsors this site, have a lot of good libraries, and a couple of their reps actively participate here. The other two vendors you mentioned both started out as contributing code authors here and took their stuff commercial. I am not in the .NET frame of mind, so I tend to ignore anything I see about it. "...the staggering layers of obcenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
I'll tell you which one to ignore - Stingray. The rest of them are viable, and depends on a) How much money you have to spend b) Your ability to predict the future Dundas sponsors this site, have a lot of good libraries, and a couple of their reps actively participate here. The other two vendors you mentioned both started out as contributing code authors here and took their stuff commercial. I am not in the .NET frame of mind, so I tend to ignore anything I see about it. "...the staggering layers of obcenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
John, > The other two vendors you mentioned both started >out as contributing code authors There were rumors on several forums (including this one) about "origin" of the BCGControlBar library and now I'd like to take a chance and tell all the readers the truth. BCGControlBar was not started from the open sources taken from this site or CodeGuru site. It started as an internal company project BY ME and was published on CodeGuru site (according to the company's permission) 3.5 years ago BY ME. Until December 2000 the library was freeware for everyone and starting this date it went commercial (the company permitted this as well). Yes, there were a few open-source components (like Windows manager and Sizing Control bar) which were included into the library at the early stage under agreement with the authors. In the future, all this code was redesigned, but it still have credits of their respective authors. Best regards, Stas Levin BCGSoft Ltd. http://www.bcgsoft.com
-
John, > The other two vendors you mentioned both started >out as contributing code authors There were rumors on several forums (including this one) about "origin" of the BCGControlBar library and now I'd like to take a chance and tell all the readers the truth. BCGControlBar was not started from the open sources taken from this site or CodeGuru site. It started as an internal company project BY ME and was published on CodeGuru site (according to the company's permission) 3.5 years ago BY ME. Until December 2000 the library was freeware for everyone and starting this date it went commercial (the company permitted this as well). Yes, there were a few open-source components (like Windows manager and Sizing Control bar) which were included into the library at the early stage under agreement with the authors. In the future, all this code was redesigned, but it still have credits of their respective authors. Best regards, Stas Levin BCGSoft Ltd. http://www.bcgsoft.com
I stand corrected. :) If anyone is interested, I have purchased and used Stingray (ugh), Dundas (good code and support, but below average, yet improving, documentation), and BCGControlBar (good code, good support, and fair documentation). "...the staggering layers of obcenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
-
John, > The other two vendors you mentioned both started >out as contributing code authors There were rumors on several forums (including this one) about "origin" of the BCGControlBar library and now I'd like to take a chance and tell all the readers the truth. BCGControlBar was not started from the open sources taken from this site or CodeGuru site. It started as an internal company project BY ME and was published on CodeGuru site (according to the company's permission) 3.5 years ago BY ME. Until December 2000 the library was freeware for everyone and starting this date it went commercial (the company permitted this as well). Yes, there were a few open-source components (like Windows manager and Sizing Control bar) which were included into the library at the early stage under agreement with the authors. In the future, all this code was redesigned, but it still have credits of their respective authors. Best regards, Stas Levin BCGSoft Ltd. http://www.bcgsoft.com
I really found this thread most interesting, but then I read this comment, and could not contain my laughter, I cannot believe that you actually have the nerve to claim credit for writing all of this code not to mention sell it for a profit :eek:, I have to speak up here! First off, if anyone is interested, here is a link back to the old CodeGuru archive: http://codeguru.earthweb.com/toolbar/BCGControlBar.shtml you will notice once you have looked at the article several links toward the bottom of the page that clearly indicate that you did indeed "TAKE" code from CodeGuru to create the BCG library, you basically used Tony Hoyle's code and built upon it. I have looked at your "library" and can honestly tell you that it may look nice on the surface, however, it is a very bloated and redundant piece of code. I have also compared it to other libraries such as Codejock, and even the quality of the aesthetics is very poor in comparison, my moneys on Codejock! Regards, Scott Evans
-
I stand corrected. :) If anyone is interested, I have purchased and used Stingray (ugh), Dundas (good code and support, but below average, yet improving, documentation), and BCGControlBar (good code, good support, and fair documentation). "...the staggering layers of obcenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
Wow buddy, you're the poster child for the 3rd party libraries business :) David http://www.dundas.com
-
I really found this thread most interesting, but then I read this comment, and could not contain my laughter, I cannot believe that you actually have the nerve to claim credit for writing all of this code not to mention sell it for a profit :eek:, I have to speak up here! First off, if anyone is interested, here is a link back to the old CodeGuru archive: http://codeguru.earthweb.com/toolbar/BCGControlBar.shtml you will notice once you have looked at the article several links toward the bottom of the page that clearly indicate that you did indeed "TAKE" code from CodeGuru to create the BCG library, you basically used Tony Hoyle's code and built upon it. I have looked at your "library" and can honestly tell you that it may look nice on the surface, however, it is a very bloated and redundant piece of code. I have also compared it to other libraries such as Codejock, and even the quality of the aesthetics is very poor in comparison, my moneys on Codejock! Regards, Scott Evans
> you basically used Tony Hoyle's code and built upon it." Sir, first of all, if you make reference to some arcicles, READ THESE ARTICLES TWICE, it never can be redundant:) The text in the article you mentioned here says: "some ideas about MDI menus". In other words, the single idea that I obtained from the EXCELLENT Tony's article is ability to remove the standard MDI menu and replace it by the menu bar. If you like CJ, just use it. Stas Levin BCGSoft Ltd. http://www.bcgsoft.com
-
I really found this thread most interesting, but then I read this comment, and could not contain my laughter, I cannot believe that you actually have the nerve to claim credit for writing all of this code not to mention sell it for a profit :eek:, I have to speak up here! First off, if anyone is interested, here is a link back to the old CodeGuru archive: http://codeguru.earthweb.com/toolbar/BCGControlBar.shtml you will notice once you have looked at the article several links toward the bottom of the page that clearly indicate that you did indeed "TAKE" code from CodeGuru to create the BCG library, you basically used Tony Hoyle's code and built upon it. I have looked at your "library" and can honestly tell you that it may look nice on the surface, however, it is a very bloated and redundant piece of code. I have also compared it to other libraries such as Codejock, and even the quality of the aesthetics is very poor in comparison, my moneys on Codejock! Regards, Scott Evans
that clearly indicate that you did indeed "TAKE" code from CodeGuru to create the BCG library The article said he was "inspired by" not "used" code by Tony. I have looked at your "library" and can honestly tell you that it may look nice on the surface; however, it is a very bloated and redundant piece of code. I have also compared it to other libraries such as Codejock, and even the quality of the aesthetics is very poor in comparison, my moneys on Codejock! Have you checked out the professional version demo? How can you call that poor? The only issues I could find with it (and I was very thorough when I was testing it) have already been bought up on the BCGSoft support forum, and are known issues that will be fixed. The only product I have come across capable of being compared to that (and I speak from a user point of view as the source is not yet available) is Infragistics’ Ultra Office, and they have been in the business for longer than Stas and co. CodeJock doesn’t come near with even the quality of the aesthetics. (Indeed, I could do better with a marker pen.) And I can say from experience (having developed with BCGControlBar for the past 18 months at least) that it isn’t bloated unnecessarily, and is a breeze to work with once you’ve grasped MFC. I won’t lay my money down and claim the professional version will be the best thing next to since slice bread and buttons on jeans, until I’ve had a chance to test it in real world environment, but it is looking very promising.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
Dr David Wulff, Phd Aqkuoerian Sciences dwulff@battleaxesoftware.nospam.com Founder of The BLA iF yuo find speeling mistkaes, don;t blaem me, blaem my keybord.
-
that clearly indicate that you did indeed "TAKE" code from CodeGuru to create the BCG library The article said he was "inspired by" not "used" code by Tony. I have looked at your "library" and can honestly tell you that it may look nice on the surface; however, it is a very bloated and redundant piece of code. I have also compared it to other libraries such as Codejock, and even the quality of the aesthetics is very poor in comparison, my moneys on Codejock! Have you checked out the professional version demo? How can you call that poor? The only issues I could find with it (and I was very thorough when I was testing it) have already been bought up on the BCGSoft support forum, and are known issues that will be fixed. The only product I have come across capable of being compared to that (and I speak from a user point of view as the source is not yet available) is Infragistics’ Ultra Office, and they have been in the business for longer than Stas and co. CodeJock doesn’t come near with even the quality of the aesthetics. (Indeed, I could do better with a marker pen.) And I can say from experience (having developed with BCGControlBar for the past 18 months at least) that it isn’t bloated unnecessarily, and is a breeze to work with once you’ve grasped MFC. I won’t lay my money down and claim the professional version will be the best thing next to since slice bread and buttons on jeans, until I’ve had a chance to test it in real world environment, but it is looking very promising.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
Dr David Wulff, Phd Aqkuoerian Sciences dwulff@battleaxesoftware.nospam.com Founder of The BLA iF yuo find speeling mistkaes, don;t blaem me, blaem my keybord.
Take a look a the codejock package...very reasonable and a great set of MFC extensions. It saved me hours....... I used it with our Administration tool...you can see the screenshots if you like.... http://www.taloncc.com/tccemissary Click on the Mercury Administrator.... For CodeJock...http://www.codejock.com :) --Keith
-
I really found this thread most interesting, but then I read this comment, and could not contain my laughter, I cannot believe that you actually have the nerve to claim credit for writing all of this code not to mention sell it for a profit :eek:, I have to speak up here! First off, if anyone is interested, here is a link back to the old CodeGuru archive: http://codeguru.earthweb.com/toolbar/BCGControlBar.shtml you will notice once you have looked at the article several links toward the bottom of the page that clearly indicate that you did indeed "TAKE" code from CodeGuru to create the BCG library, you basically used Tony Hoyle's code and built upon it. I have looked at your "library" and can honestly tell you that it may look nice on the surface, however, it is a very bloated and redundant piece of code. I have also compared it to other libraries such as Codejock, and even the quality of the aesthetics is very poor in comparison, my moneys on Codejock! Regards, Scott Evans
I haven't used BCG's library, but I did purchase the XTreme Toolkit from Codejock a couple of months ago when I had a really tight deadline to do some pretty tricky user interface. The thing that attracted me to the library mostly was it's integration with the shell (I needed an Explorer view) and the way it looked so much like what Microsoft does in their UI. I've been incredibly happy with the support that I received from Codejock and, in fact, they added in a couple of features nearly over night based on input that I gave them and even took some modifications I made to their code and integrated it back in. In either case, BCG or Codejock I think the price (around $300) is worth every penny since it's easy to burn that much money in just a few hours of programming time especially if you use consultants. Again, I don't know about BCG, but the Xtreme stuff worked as advertised and I highly recommend it. I used to use Dundas Ultimate Toolkit, but my subscription ran out and they weren't really coming out with anything new in the library. BTW, implementing the parts of the library I needed (lots of it actually) cost me around 200K in code space. That's my $.02, but to be fair all I really tried of the BCG library was the demo and I needed the shell integration functionality so I went with Codejock. I haven't regretted it and I found lots of goodies that I didn't even know about when I bought the library. Tom Serface:)
-
Take a look a the codejock package...very reasonable and a great set of MFC extensions. It saved me hours....... I used it with our Administration tool...you can see the screenshots if you like.... http://www.taloncc.com/tccemissary Click on the Mercury Administrator.... For CodeJock...http://www.codejock.com :) --Keith
I never said CodeJock's offering wasn't a fair price and quality, I just said that the points rasied by the previous guy were really more applicable to the CodeJock solution than BCG's. However, I will stand by my statement about the quality of CodeJock's offering's visual elements. They leave a lot to be desired.
:cool: -=:suss:=-
Dr David Wulff, Phd Aqkuoerian Sciences dwulff@battleaxesoftware.nospam.com Founder of The BLA iF yuo find speeling mistkaes, don;t blaem me, blaem my keybord.
-
I haven't used BCG's library, but I did purchase the XTreme Toolkit from Codejock a couple of months ago when I had a really tight deadline to do some pretty tricky user interface. The thing that attracted me to the library mostly was it's integration with the shell (I needed an Explorer view) and the way it looked so much like what Microsoft does in their UI. I've been incredibly happy with the support that I received from Codejock and, in fact, they added in a couple of features nearly over night based on input that I gave them and even took some modifications I made to their code and integrated it back in. In either case, BCG or Codejock I think the price (around $300) is worth every penny since it's easy to burn that much money in just a few hours of programming time especially if you use consultants. Again, I don't know about BCG, but the Xtreme stuff worked as advertised and I highly recommend it. I used to use Dundas Ultimate Toolkit, but my subscription ran out and they weren't really coming out with anything new in the library. BTW, implementing the parts of the library I needed (lots of it actually) cost me around 200K in code space. That's my $.02, but to be fair all I really tried of the BCG library was the demo and I needed the shell integration functionality so I went with Codejock. I haven't regretted it and I found lots of goodies that I didn't even know about when I bought the library. Tom Serface:)
Ah...how I love it in the middle of mud slinging. It's nice to see people bash each other over the merits and demerits of the software they use. Sure, a lot of things have come to light. Understand folks, software is just like *people* (after all, they have their personalities stamped all over it). Some like it a piece of software, others don't-just like *NOBODY* gets accepted by everyone. I love Outlook. A lot of others HATE it. People swear by MS and Unix. In that light, only YOU can make the right choice based on your situation and really, it's a judgment call. We use Dundas, and picked it over Stingray-simply because we evaluated our options and figured that Stingray wasn't the right fit. Simple. All these 3rd party guys have free downloads, so what's stopping you from evaluating 'em? "Assumptions are the mother of all screwups"
-
Nish, we don't have separate versions for the freeware and shareware developers. > Later I tried again for a shareware license and got an auto-reply in a > minute's time. You submitted both requests in the same time. Because you wrote "I also develop shareware. For that I have submitted a separate request in the Shareware Developer's registration page" in the Freeware Registration request form, we assumed that you will order a shareware version with discounted price and use it in your both freeware and shareware products. Regards, Stas Levin BCGSoft Ltd. http://www.bcgsoft.com
Hello Stas Thanks for this response. Well, I didnt realize that you were giving the same library. I kinda thought there was a light-freeware-version and a heavier-shareware-version and a still heavier-commercial-version. Well, I had thought of buying the shareware-license for my shareware spam cleaner, but even the discounted price was unaffordable when converted to my country's currency. One US Dollar = 47 Indian Rupees :-) I hope you can see why I couldn't buy it. Anyway the reason I wanted your library was for one single thing - the XP style menus. That attracted me. Anyhow, thanks again for this clarification. Good luck with your product. Regards Nish
-
Yeah, AND you're probably going to get a faster response to a question here. I nearly died laughing when I saw the Stingray demo, it's really a joke. Unless it was an old demo and the new one does sexier things, pretty much every control I saw I reckon I could put together within an hour or two, some less, maybe some a little more. Christian After all, there's nothing wrong with an elite as long as I'm allowed to be part of it!! - Mike Burston Oct 23, 2001
I don't agree. If you (or anyone else) can write Objective Grid and Stingray's Docking Windows implementation in an hour or two, I would be able to trek to the moon (and back) in a day. Seriously, I am no fan of Stingray (after Rogue Wave took over). They charge a lot and support sucks. But give credit where it is due. Objective Grid is a work of art and the source code for Objective Grid is bigger (number of lines wise) and far more cleaner than that of MFC itself. Not great metrics but it does give a feel for the nature and scope of the product. I don't know what you saw but I could not stop laughing when I saw your comments :-D Suresh
-
Ah...how I love it in the middle of mud slinging. It's nice to see people bash each other over the merits and demerits of the software they use. Sure, a lot of things have come to light. Understand folks, software is just like *people* (after all, they have their personalities stamped all over it). Some like it a piece of software, others don't-just like *NOBODY* gets accepted by everyone. I love Outlook. A lot of others HATE it. People swear by MS and Unix. In that light, only YOU can make the right choice based on your situation and really, it's a judgment call. We use Dundas, and picked it over Stingray-simply because we evaluated our options and figured that Stingray wasn't the right fit. Simple. All these 3rd party guys have free downloads, so what's stopping you from evaluating 'em? "Assumptions are the mother of all screwups"
Ah... to be fair I wasn't bashing anybody. I simply found something cool and figured I'd jump in and put in my $.02 I think the Dundas code is great. In fact, I know some of the owners of the company and have used their grid control for many years. The guys at Dundas are good guys as well. I was simply talking about my most recent "venture" and reacting to another post where I saw Codejock mentioned. I had a positive experience. I've never tried the Stingray stuff other than the demo. I have friends who have used it and they seemed to like it OK. There demo is a little less functional and a little more difficult to get to, but they have been around for a while and certainly the authors are talented MFC experts... Still, I'm happy with the stuff I got from Codejock and with the support that they give. I think you're correct. It is sort of a matter of preference... like so many other things. Tom
