Related
I am attempting to write a cross-platform GUI application that would be deployed to Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. My requirements are:
Single code base for all three deployment platforms, without a large amount of conditional logic for handling differences between platforms.
Looks as close to "native" as possible on all three platforms.
Easily distributable to all three platforms, in the sense that it could be easily installed by end users and does not suffer from extreme bloat (as discussed in this ArsTechnica article.)
Based on these requirements, I've narrowed down the selection of toolkits to Qt and wxWidgets, since none of the other toolkits that I know about (including Java's Swing and SWT, Flex, AIR, etc.) satisfy the "native-looking" requirement. Among these two final contenders, Qt appears to offer better support for applications that look and feel native on all three of my deployment platforms, but I'm willing to consider opinions to the contrary.
I would prefer not to use C++ as the implementation language, but I'm not sure if there are any practical alternatives. My biggest concern about using an implementation language other than C++ is the deployment problem. As discussed in the Ars Technica article, PyQt does not meet the "easy deployment' requirement in any practical sense, and I suspect that most other language bindings for Qt would suffer from the same deployment problems (at least on Mac OS X). Java (or Scala) with QtJambi? QtRuby? wxPython?
Does anyone know of any combination of language and toolkit that satisfies all three of the above requirements?
It depends on your needs. But in general Qt Framework (with any language) and Java SE (with any language) is much more better because it has not only cross-OS GUI libraries but also cross-OS networking, threads, ... wxWidgets is GUI only.
Both Qt and wxWidgets are nice. In my experience Qt is better. Swing is... Well, not so nice.
Both Qt and wxWidgets applications written in C++ and Java Swing applications are not so hard to deploy on Windows, Mac and Linux. The rule is that the deployment is simple when you are programming in "native" language. By "native" language I mean the language a framework itself is written in.
PyQt does not meet the "easy deployment' requirement in any practical sense...
Python (and any other language with the default implementation as interpreter) apps is hard to deploy in the usual sense (I mean in form of standalone executables).
So probably you have 2 choices:
C++/Qt or C++/wxWidgets.
Java/Swing if native look & feel is not very strict requirement.
wxWidgets is quite good, and does contain some non-GUI code (contrary to what kemiisto said): threads, sockets etc.
The nice thing about wxWidgets is that wxPython actually should be pretty easy to deploy on OS X. There are some other language bindings for wx, but wxPython is probably one of the oldest ones.
At my day job I've been developing cross-platform (Windows / MacOS / Linux) using perl and wxWidgets. The combination is pleasant to use for development (I'm a perl hacker) and I rarely have to include specialized code per platform. There are some perl modules that help out with this (e.g. File::HomeDir that knows about the canonical locations for document directories etc on the various platforms).
For release, I don't rely at all on the system perl installation and instead build a perl installation that is included in the release. This way I can completely control the runtime environment of the app. I ship a windows installer package via innosetup, an mac os .dmg file with a .app included that the user can just drag to their /Applications, and for linux I build debian and redhat packages.
Have you looked at Xojo? It definitely meets all three of your requirements and it is much simpler to learn and use than C++.
About a decade ago or so, it was fashionable to model a GUI in a cross-platform flavor of XML (like XUL) and then have a platform-specific rendering engine process that XML-file to display a layout. It is no longer fashionable to do this, however. Today, in 2017, the trend is to build your apps on platforms that allow you to write everything in HTML, CSS and/or JavaScript, no matter what environment your code is supposed to run in.
The "first generation" of this type of tools produced what are basically "hybrid" applications, where web applications run on top of browser-like & platform-specific WebViews. This technique is rather inefficient, however. Your apps don't feel very "native", are rather bloated and they tend to be rather lacking in performance. However, it's relatively easy to have a consistent look-and-feel in different environments. Phonegap / Cordova is the most popular platform for mobile environments and NW.js for desktop environments.
The "second generation" is different : they compile everything to fully "native", platform-specific binaries. Instead of relying on WebViews, "native" widgets are used when possible. This gives your app a more "native" look-and-feel, typically has less bloat and is much better for performance. However, you'll have more differences between the different platforms. Examples are NativeScript, React Native & Tabris.js (all for mobile environments).
Unfortunately, there are no "second generation" tools for desktop just yet. So, right now, if you want to build a cross-platform desktop app, you're stuck with "first generation" tools. NW.js has a longer track record than Electron and has support for various features not present in Electron, but it also comes with its drawbacks. AppJS is still older, but it's not as mature - and not nearly as popular - as the other two.
Anyway, their reliance on WebViews means that your application will feel more like a web app than a desktop app. And bloat and performance drawbacks are inevitable with this kind of solution. This means you'll never get the same performance as code you write directly in Java or C++ nor the same performance you'd get in "second generation" platforms, and it will never feel equally "native". However, it can still be the best solution eg. when a consistent look-and-feel across different platforms is more important or when you have a background as a web developer.
If performance, lack of bloat and your application getting that "native" feel are important criteria, you might want to wait a little longer until the first "second generation" platforms appear for desktop. It's really but a matter of time before platforms for desktop apps follow the same evolutionary path as platforms for mobile apps, although it might actually come in the form of "desktop extensions" to existing mobile platforms.
The way it's currently looking, it looks like you'll soon be able to write "native" apps for desktop & mobile alike with the exact same codebase. With React Native already having plugins that add support for Windows 10 and support for MacOS, I would personally go with React Native and give their dev team some time until they support all desktop environments I need to support and those extensions for desktop are mature enough for production environments.
If you can't wait that long, you don't want to bet on what's to come in the future or if these criteria aren't that important for whatever application you want to build today, you might want to try some of the "first generation" platforms currently available and see which is most suitable for you. Just be aware of the drawbacks!
As always, choose wisely...
Popular platforms
First generation platforms for mobile environments (iOS & Android)
Meteor (built on top of Cordova)
Ionic (built on top of Cordova)
Second generation platforms for mobile environments (iOS & Android)
NativeScript (AngularJS eco-system).
React Native (React eco-system)
Tabris.js
Platforms for desktop environments (Windows, Linux or MacOS)
Electron
NW.js
AppJS
Platforms for smart home and IoT devices
iViewer
Iridium mobile
.Net (C# or VB.Net) is what I would use for this (in fact, it is what I use for my own application). Thanks to the Mono project, .Net applications can run on Mac and Linux as well as Windows without any modifications to the code (unless you're calling Windows API functions). You don't even have to compile different versions of your program: the same EXE will run on all platforms.
Java/SWT is one of the good choices. You can find a lot of information about it here.
Java does support "native-looking" applications by using the SystemLookAndFeel. The quickest way to try is to invoke the following at application start up.
UIManager.setLookAndFeel(UIManager.getSystemLookAndFeelClassName());
Take a look at this for more information on the available Look and Feels in Java.
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/tutorial/uiswing/lookandfeel/plaf.html
We are selling an image processing application (about 120k lines of code) developed with wxWidgets. We planned everything to be as most cross platform as possible in case the porting from Windows to other OS was needed. And in fact we are going to realiza a version for Mac.
We haven't tested wxWidgest on Mac yet, but we haven't read very good things about it.
In general, do you think is it worth to port from wxWidgets to QT? Do you believe it will be an hard and long job?
Is QT for Mac much better than wxWidgets implementation?
Is QT much more productive that wxWidgets?
I would like to add that we would'n like to keep code bases for gui, so the choice is just wxWidgets vs QT.
Test your application on Mac, and then decide. If there are only a few wrinkles to iron out, why put in all that extra work to switch toolkits?
It will be a long hard job. Without knowing more about your application and situation, it is hard to say whether making the switch is worth the effort. I do know that I would rather work on a Qt app than a wx app.
I have a friend who recently switched a significant wx application to Qt, and he is quite happy with the change. Mac support is one of his (boss's) important features, but I think wx's support for Mac was adequate, if not stellar.
My experience has been that Qt is definitely more productive than wx.
It is worth noting that wxWidgets on the Mac is transitioning to Cocoa. This should be done for wxWidgets 3.0, but is testable with the development release wxWidgets 2.9 now. Is Qt Cocoa or Carbon based?
We have an application that runs under Windows and the Mac, built using wxWidgets. The application performs very well on both platforms.
I recommend switching over to Qt. wxWidgets is a GUI toolkit, whereas Qt is an application framework with much, much more features.
I can't say anything about their mac implementations, but i can clearly say that i am far more productive using Qt. When i was using wxWidgets, i was a student and then when i got a job, i started using Qt.
wxWidgets gave me a feeling of incompleteness, but as i said, this may be caused by the fact that i was an inexperienced student but nonetheless, i think Qt is way better.
Until you have investigated more and have a good reason(s) to switch toolkits, then absolutely not.
We are using wxWidgets for Linux & the like, Mac, and Windows. It's a great toolkit and certainly much more than just a GUI.
Like dtw and NuSkooler, we are using wxWidgets on Mac (carbon/cocoa), Linux (32/64), Windows (32/64) and all works fine. In wx, we use gui, filesystem, threads, html libs.
+1 for Qt
I have used both wxWidgets and Qt extensively on different projects for the Windows platform writing C++ applications.
Having used both and compared the two after, I would absolutely use Qt over wxWidgets. You need to consider (as some of the others have pointed out) if the re-factoring effort is is something you have time for and are willing to do.
Also consider the cost -- this may not matter in your situation, but unlike wxWidgets, the Qt Library is not free for commercial use. I have spoken to TrollTech at length and read through their licensing agreement to verify this; you definitely have to pay unless you GPL your application.
Regarding licensing see:
http://qt.nokia.com/about/licensing/frequently-asked-questions
"Will you continue to offer Qt under a
commercial license?"
"Yes, absolutely. Our commercial
licensing will continue."
"Why would I want to buy a commercial
license? What is the difference?"
"The commercial Qt license includes
email support, access to upgrades and
allows you to develop fully closed
source software. The LGPL carries some
restrictions regarding the ability for
users to relink libraries and other
restrictions that may impose
architectural requirements that some
organizations might not be comfortable
with."
Qt is definitely worth the money though, even if you are not doing cross-platform development. It has a lot more and better documentation. Qt and wxWidgets are not perfect... The fact that they are bloated and provide APIs for networking, data structures, and database handling is not necessarily a good thing. Sometimes sticking with the STL or Boost libraries (if you're coding in C++) is a much better solution.
Good luck.
-bn
+1 for wxWidgets. A big project of mine used wxWidgets and found it a nice framework to use, and an easy enough framework to get your head around to modify if you need to (to support Mac specific features).
Try it: you could be 80% there when you first generate the binary.
Ok, this is an interesting question to ask because everyone has a say in it.
What is your favorite library to program in for GUI's and the language that you program it in. Give a short reason why. (ex. Gtk, Qt, Windows, etc..) Just an FYI, this includes any scripting language that you program a GUI in Python, Perl etc...
Frankly I've always done Gtk in C, but I'm starting to warm up to Qt in C++ with the new KDE. I've never been a big fan of Windows programming.
ChrisW. stated that I did not give a reason for Gtk/Qt so here goes. I started with Gtk because when I started programming GUI's I was working in Linux and there was more Gtk information available. Started utilizing Qt when I started working more in KDE but really the move to Qt was based on trying to move to C++ and learn more languages. I've never been a fan of basic Windows programming, but I do enjoy a little DirectX now and then :P
Recently I had the opportunity to work with both wxWindows and QT, while some time ago I wrote some small programs using FLTK and Gtk. My conclusion is that widget libraries tend to be very similar; each one has its strenghts and its quirks.
Instead of advocating a specific library, then, I would like to advocate the use of high level languages in GUI programming: the development cycle is way faster and GUI programs are rarely CPU bound, so the performance hit is rarely a problem.
If a GUI program has to perform some intense computations, just develop a core library in C or C++, but keep the interface in Python or whatever other interpreted language.
People like to bash Swing for being old, slow and ugly, but it's just not true. Swing is mature, is faster than ever on Java SE 6/10, looks decent enough, and is tolerable to program. Above all, I've found Java + Swing to be the most trouble-free cross-platform combination. It also works remarkably seamlessly with Jython (Python on JVM).
SWT could also be an option, but so far I've been happy with Swing.
I realise you're focusing on application GUIs but if you want a quick, powerful and fun way to visualize anything on your computer, you can't go past Processing
From the site:
Processing is an open source
programming language and environment
for people who want to program images,
animation, and interactions. It is
used by students, artists, designers,
researchers, and hobbyists for
learning, prototyping, and production.
It is created to teach fundamentals of
computer programming within a visual
context and to serve as a software
sketchbook and professional production
tool. Processing is an alternative to
proprietary software tools in the same
domain.
WPF in particular, and XAML in all its reincarnations (WPF, Silverlight, Moonlight).
C# on top of .Net 3.5/Mono: $0
Visual Studio Express/MonoDevelop: $0
Being able to tell the designer "make my program pretty" and continue coding features: priceless.
I liked writing to video memory under DOS: for an animated game (i.e. an Asteroids clone), that was as fast (performant) as I knew how to do it (certainly faster that using the BIOS API).
This is really a somewhat subjective question, so there is no best or correct answer to it. The following is based on my (limited) experience:
I personally like wxWidgets with PLT Scheme for writing simple but flexible GUIs. There are much more advanced toolkits, but I usually do not need their features. wxWidgets is flexible and the Scheme interface follows Scheme traditions of being powerful with a relatively simple structure. I like the fact that wxWidgets is portable, and yet tries not to actually draw its own widgets, but can use native or common toolkits of the environment it is used under. It is written in C++ but I never used its C++ interface.
That is not to say that in my opinion Scheme will generally be the optimal language to write your application in. In fact there are many kinds of applications I would not write in Scheme, even though I like the language. But regarding the GUI programming part, that is my favourite because of its straight-forwardness, and the way that a functional language like Scheme goes well with declarative-style GUI programming.
Of course you will not have the same level of control when using that as when having your program involved in every stage of the window construction and input reaction, by using an event loop (such as with Win32API or Xt/Intrinsics). But that is not always convenient and often unnecessary, and seems to become decreasingly common.
Note: The wxWindows toolkit was renamed wxWidgets, but my installation of a rather recent version of PLT Scheme still comes with the older wxWindows. I am not sure whether there is an updated package of wxWidgets available or if it is going to be included in a future version of PLT Scheme.
Qt4 without question for me. Now that it has an LGPL license it makes sense for all kinds of applications that previously weren't possible. Additionally, it changes C++ in ways that dramatically improve the experience of using the language. (Things like a foreach and forever loop, atomic operations on integers, and memory management)
Gtk and is the primary window-drawing graphical subsystem I have experience working with (and is therefore my favorite XD).
As far as general graphics subsystems go, however, OpenGL (typically in combination with GLUT) has been an easy and productive ride for me. Regrettably I have little DirectX experience to compare to, though :S
For writing souped-up versions of standard Windows components, I loved Borland's VCL, and am very pleased with .NET.
my background: i've been developing web applications using php and javascript for the past ten years. before that, i've developed applications using turbo pascal for DOS. in my opinion application and web application development are two different kinds of development (at least it's what i think when i remember back the old days of DOS application development).
now i am in the need to go back to "normal" application development for various reasons. the application i want to build needs a GUI and it has to run on osx and windows. as mac os user it would be very nice for me to get an application as result, that really feels like an osx application. i don't need any special UI components: an explorer/finder like tree, a datagrid and some form-elements would be enough for my needs.
now the problem is, that i don't know where to start: i would classify me as newbie, because it's that long time since i last developed anything other than a web application. are there any recommendations of programming languages and gui toolkits with a not to steep learning curve? or can you recommend any book i should read for getting into cross-plattform osx/windows app development?
many thanks!
thanks everyone! i think i'll have a look at realbasic!
Edit Nov 2011 - a retraction
Most of what I say below is still true however I have now got serious reservations about recommending REALbasic for anyone trying to release commercial-quality applications. To save me remembering to edit this post later, see if RealSoftware have managed to release a robust version of their IDE using the Cocoa version of their frameworks. If not, be very cautious.
It's with a heavy heart that I write this because I still really like the language and think the framework and IDE are well-done. The problem is apparently one of under-capitalization and possibly a software development culture inside the company that consistently fails to deal with a bug regression problem. Many bugs are fixed each release but there appears to be a huge tax on the developers in the number of introduced bugs. They have a very small team for the complexity of the product, especially considering the newly released Web Edition which is effectively an entirely new platform.
It's still theoretically a great product but take advantage of the trial period, test it thoroughly on each of the platforms you plan to target and decide if you can live with any bugs you find because they may be there for a while.
REALbasic.
The language is a powerful, modern OO language that won't be hard for you to adapt to from your vaguely remembered Pascal or current JavaScript. It has most of the power of C++ without the dangerous bits that make debugging a nightmare. You will also find the IDE simpler and easier to deal with than say Visual Studio.
The IDE makes it very easy to throw together a GUI and have it just work on multiple platforms. The Pro version has one of the best cross-platform debuggers I've used and it is easy to just work (say) on a Mac and develop for Windows and Linux, compiling and testing with one click.
There is also a thriving community including many people at your level of expertise so you won't be mocked for being a newbie.
I am a professional software developer with over 25 years experience and currently mainly working in REALbasic, C++, C#, Objective-C and a bit of Ruby. For apps such as you mention, REALbasic is my tool of choice.
edit: I can't believe someone downvoted this but didn't have the guts to add a comment explaining why. I'd heard about prejudice against REALbasic but this is the first time I've encountered it. In what way was my answer inappropriate for this question?
Just to add to my cred, I've implemented cross-platform frameworks used by systems deployed to tens of thousands of end users - I have the C++ cross-platform experience to applaud someone else doing a good job and the REALbasic frameworks are very nice.
The best cross-platform tool I've dabbled in with a relatively small learning curve...especially if you're familiar with Visual Basic...is REALbasic. With REALbasic Pro you can compile a program to target Win32, Linux, and OS X from the same codebase, as long as you're not using OS-specific calls and features (which you can do with plugins or direct calls). Their support has been pretty responsive to my questions, the personal edition (which compiles to only the single target platform you'd downloaded the IDE for) is free for Linux and inexpensive for other platforms, but really you might want to download and try it out. One IDE, relatively inexpensive, and can compile native applications on OS X, Windows, and Linux...it's less hassle, and for me that's important when you want to get a job done.
I'd advise against C and Qt and would also recommend REALbasic.
With your background in Pascal and probably JavaScript you'll feel much more comfortable with REALbasic. I've done a lot of coding in Pascal and C/C++ - where Pascal guides you to avoid programming mistakes, C lets you step right in, even invites you, and then you'll have a hard time figuring out why it went wrong. Qt is a very abstract framework and requires you to learn a lot before you can get something working, just like with C. When compared to the easyness we used to have with TP back then.
RB is much more like Pascal in this regard. And its IDE is quite modern in regards to supporting your programming, with an easy-to-use GUI designer, straight-forward editor to fill in the gaps for handling UI events, code completion, etc.
Only when you get into huge program sizes, RB loses some of its appeal because it is missing tools to give you a good overview of complex class interactions etc.
Another thing is that Qt is more likely to cause ugly-looking Mac apps than RB would. RB visually guides you to get it all aligned nicely - in Qt you have to work with numbers, offsets, etc. to position your objects (at least it was that way when I used Qt 2 years ago).
I've written quite a few x-platform apps in RB and am pretty happy with the results.
You won't probably write those super-nice looking apps that compete with the best on the open small business market, but if you just want to get some solid code working, with an easy-to-design UI that's acceptable to the average user, give RB a try.
It's not free, though. But its rather small community is on your side - they're eager to help, instead of bashing everyone who's trying to talk sense :)
I'm new here but picked up on this thread through the REALbasic User Group. I think my position was similar to yours. I did website design for my work, using mostly javascript (with a little php, not much). I had a Pascal and BASIC background. I'd dabbled it C but didn't like the level of detail you needed to monitor it. It reminded me too much of assembly (which I still have nightmares about from my high-school/college days).
I was looking for a cross-platform language, with a familiar feel to it, but initially started with VB because it was free. I prefer programming in MacOS however, so I tried REALbasic. I found that REALbasic's UI builder was much easier to use than VB's. I'd echo other comments that the community is the most responsive of any user groups I've been involved with. I've since used REALbasic and my Mac to make several programs that over 100 users use every day at my work (on PCs, mostly XP and 2000). I've received compliments on the polish and ease of use of these programs. You DO have to remember to adjust the 'little' things to make it look right cross platform (ie: default button placement is opposite on PC vs. Mac, button sizes are different on Linux, etc). Many people have donated custom classes that do this stuff for you though.
People seem to assume that a "BASIC" language cannot be powerful enough for their purposes. While it is BASIC at it's core (with For..Next, Do..While, and If..Then commands), it ain't your daddy's BASIC. It's much more OOP than anything else I've used, based upon an event-driven structure, which for me was easy to pick up. They have a free trial, so grab a demo and run through the tutorial. If you get stuck, ask for questions on the NUG or Forums at the website and you'll likely get an answer quickly.
You may be interested in the following questions and answers:
Cross-platform development - Go with a cross-platform UI toolkit or native on multiple platforms?
Easiest cross platform widget toolkit?
Should I use a cross-platform GUI-toolkit or rely on the native ones?
Using a Mac for cross platform development?
and many others suggested in the Related sidebar of these questions.
Some answers suggest gtk (which is used by cross-platform gimp). Others suggest native approaches. Some suggest that a Mac is a nice platform for developing for Mac OS X, Windows, Unix and Linux.
I wholeheartedly recommend RealBasic too. I have been using RB for about 8 years now and find it to be a perfect tool for my Companies development needs, from small apps, to large multi-user systems.
It is perfect for beginners and those that are getting back into programming, and also for professional developers.
Highly recommended.
As Andy Dent and others here have indicated, for a newbie to create cross-platform applications it is hard to beat REALbasic (now Xojo).
Sure, there are plenty of other cross platform solutions such as QT (C++), Java, .NET (to some extent) and wxWidgets but they are not something a beginner would be able to use effectively.
I have many years of professional development experience in a wide variety of languages and technologies and I prefer to use REALbasic most of the time.
With that said, you might also consider Runtime Revolution or Adobe Air.
Whilst it might seem tempting to use a language thats platform independent and allow you to write the app once and use anywhere, you will undoubtably be sacrificing something on each, particularly in the UI and user experience.
If you can your best creating something using a native API that lets you take full advantage of the features of the OS to make your application shine.
I would definitely go for C++ and Qt, the code you write once will compile and run without problems on Windows, Mac and Linux. The new IDE that comes with Qt - Qt Creator is brilliant, works and looks the same on Windows, Mac and Linux, you don't need to anything else to start writing cross-platform applications.
I tried WxWidgets but didn't find good IDE, the best one was Code Blocks but GUI Designer is not perfect and has different problems on different systems and the IDE itself is still under heavy development.
Other options are Java and C# but those are not cross-platform languages, those are platforms themselves. Although you wouldn't need to compile code for each platform there will a lot of different issues on the way...
If your GUI's simple enough, why not just create a generic GUI layer, then program to that? Compile a version for each OS using native widgets. That's the best way to ensure native L&F on multiple platforms.
Both the Qt and REALbasic suggestions are good, although they tie you to that particular technology (which I can't imagine would be an issue in this particular case).
Personally, I'd go with Java, because it's worked for me before (I had an app that ran on my PDA, my phone and my desktop), but it doesn't use native widgets.
Adding a late comment here:
Take a look at Revolution. It's sort of like a modern Hyper-card on roids. And it's cross platform (Mac, Linux and Windows). This is a serious competitor to RealBasic and is coming on strong. Though I still use RB (and like it) I'm giving Revolution a serious look at.
I would also look into either Realbasic or Revolution. They both create cross platform native apps. Personally I think Realbasic would be a better choice as it is very similar, language wise, to VB. You can learn some valuable skills with RB and it can grow with your experience. I have been using VB and RB for more then 10 years combined and I think you will be happy.
If you need your code to be cross platform, you would have to go with something like QT.
Although, I would recommend using native API for each one (Cocoa for Mac OS X, .NET or the Win32 API for Windows). User experience will be much better. But of course, that will cost you more money in terms of developers hours.
I want to start programming with D. I have a simple application in mind that needs a GUI but I want to make sure it's portable to Linux/Windows/Mac equally well and with minimal (no) change for each platform.
wxD is looking like the contender of choice because I know the wx toolkit already.
I see fltk4d as a contender and a (unfinished) wrapper around Qt.
Are there any other truly cross platform GUI toolkits for D that will go where I want with little effort and what would the the toolkit of choice for people here?
GtkD should be a very good option for you as a stable Windows/Linux/Mac GUI toolkit.
DWT was once considered the standard, it has its own newsgroup on the Digital Mars server and I think Walter Bright may have called it the standard too. I don't think it's completely working on Mac but this should change in the future.
Here is a nice list of some other options but most have less active development and/or are not yet ready for production.
I have not used any of D's GUI libraries, but I would go with wxD if I wanted to use one now. I would pick it because I think wxD would have the most native looking controls and is cross-platform. Especially since you already know wx, it looks like a good choice.
I'm actually writing a cross-platform GUI library, Dynamin, but I have not released it yet. It is not a port; ported libraries tend to not have as nice of APIs or take advantage of as many language features. But it is not far enough along to do more than simple programs. I also don't have a Mac backend or GTK theme yet.