> Thank you for beating down my suggestion. You have successfully
> destroyed any motivation I had. No wonder OS/2 is dead, nobody cares
Actually, there are people that do - like myself. I'm investing quite
a bit of my free time into wxWindows - but having a full time job,
that isn't very much time if you look at it in an objective way. Say 8
hours per week. David Webster, who did the largest part of wxOS2 currently
has no time at all (and didn't have any for the last 8 or 9 months), but
hopes to be able to work at it next year, again.
With that speed of development, it is going to take a long time to finish
wxOS2. If we could find more contributors or if somebody would put some
funding into it, development could easily be speeded up by a factor of 5 or
I did not intend to destroy your motivation, I just wanted to clarify that
a fully working wxWindows port for OS/2 won't materialize out of the middle
of nowhere - you either need (lots of) patience or (lots of) money. :-(
Just having everybody fantasize about how great a finished wxWindows port
would be, was motivating some time ago, but meanwhile it's only frustrating
to see that nonetheless nobody is willing to invest anything into it.
BTW, I do believe that meanwhile the non-GUI related parts (sockets, threads,
file handling) really are useable, so I'm probably going to make use of it
even for my job, but the GUI-related parts are unfortunately still far
away from this status. Personally, I currently still prefer wxGTK versions
of some current software over the native versions.
Hm, actually, adding wxGTK/OS2 support to CBuilderX might be an idea ...
Micro$oft is not an answer. It is a question. The answer is 'no'.