[sword-devel] Getting rid of BibleCS (was Re: [bt-devel] Eureka!!)

Eeli Kaikkonen eekaikko at mail.student.oulu.fi
Thu Feb 26 12:15:26 MST 2009

On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, DM Smith wrote:
> Most of the criticisms that I hear about BibleCS relate to how it looks,
> not what it does. I think Manfred's comment about people not developing
> for the Mac is true for Windows too. What developer has jumped in to
> improve BibleCS?

The used GUI toolkit is not ideal for modern GUI development. Or at
least BibleCS doesn't show that it could be any good. For example, for
i18n'd application I would say changing the size of GUI components
dynamically is a basic requirement. BibleCS doesn't work with longer UI
strings. The underlying toolkit should support i18n better, or a better
i18n system should be integrated.

"How it looks" is not the only bad thing. It is also bad to use because
the UI is designed only half-way.

I have looked at the source code while translating the UI into Finnish,
and I don't want to touch that code. I don't say BibleTime is much
better, but BibleCS should be rewritten first for me to commit to it.

Also, I don't want to use a non-free tool for development.

> One of the things that BibleCS does well is run on legacy and current
> hardware. I found out the hard way with Bible Desktop that there are
> many out there that have ancient machines with an ancient OS (e.g. Win
> 98) that still want a viable, free Bible program.

As far as I know Qt supports Windows 95, 98, NT4, ME, 2000, XP and
Vista. It means that BibleTime platform support is not limited by the
GUI toolkit. I don't know yet if there are any other limitations.

But as I said I wouldn't remove BibleCS. I hope people continue to
support and enhance it, at least if they don't want to code BibleTime or
Xiphos or some other frontend.

	Eeli Kaikkonen (Mr.), Oulu, Finland
	e-mail: eekaikko at mailx.studentx.oulux.fix (with no x)

More information about the sword-devel mailing list