Re: Deprecating FLTK toolkit

[Rik]

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.

--Rik