Which technology stack do you recommend for developing native windows executable (has GUI), other than .NET stack?
Other that C++ (MFC, ...) some could be named; yet which one is mature and pragmatic enough?
Delphi 7?
Common Lisp (Which one is proper for developing GUI?)?
Scheme?
Qt or wxXXX stack?
For native Win32 GUI apps, I've found nothing that beats Delphi. (Your question asks about Delphi 7, but please note that all versions of Delphi (including the latest - Delphi 2010) can produce single, standalone .EXEs).
Python is a good choice for some sorts of problems, and you can package python programs into a single .exe using py2exe.
Here is a nice py2exe tutorial: http://www.py2exe.org/index.cgi/Tutorial
Tcl/Tk is very mature, has a small footprint, is easy to learn and use, and uses native widgets on Windows and the Mac. Plus, it has a deployment mechanism second to none by way of starpacks, starkits and tclkits. You can either create a single-file executable (starpack) that embeds a very full featured virtual filesystem, or a two-file solution of a platform-specific runtime engine (tclkit) with a platform-independent application file (starkit).
It's downside is that it's low on "flash" -- there's not a lot of support for transparency, multimedia, animation and fancy graphics. So, depending on whether or not you need a lot of eye candy it may or may not be the right choice for you.
Related
As SO returns "4,476 search results for posts containing "win32 gui applications""... I'll have to ask a question that has probably been asked before but is lost in the midst of all those questions.
Currently, what are the options to write GUI applications for Win32, that have a big-enough following so that the environment offers enough and well-supported third-party tools?
I could come up with:
C++
Delphi, and possibly
RealBasic (although the fact that it's originally a Macintosh tool could result in small but noticeable issues in look 'n feel).
Besides their relative lack of well-supported third-party tools, solutions like Python + wxWidgets, or [Power|Pure|Free]Basic aren't good options: The former has too many 1.0 widgets (couldn't find a business-grade grid, for instance), and the latter are procedural languages so requires writing apps like Petzold's book with the lower productivity it entails.
Are there other solutions available?
Thank you.
Edit: Sorry for not having been precise enough: Big tools like .Net and Java are not options. I'm looking for tools that can either build a whole EXE statically (eg. Delphi) or provide a light enough runtime (VBClassic).
If you are new to programming I would suggest C# as well if you are only looking to make this app for the Windows Platform however with tools like Mono it can be ported to OS X and Linux Platforms.
Windows has their own IDE just for this called Visual Studio Express C#
Visual Studio's C#
As well as a version for C++ if you are wanting to say in that programming language.
The Mono project allows you to use C# in Linux and Mac as well as port the apps to iOS and Android
http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page
You Can use C++ or You can even use the .net framework to develop your windows applications. .Net framework have lots of opensource contributed modules and paid modules and well as number of resources all over the internet to speed up the development compare to other options you have mentioned.
If you are going for a windows 32 gui application, I would prefer to go with .net framework, C++.
Java Swings also another best options which is platform independent as well.
You can use Lazarus as a free alternative to Delphi. Potentially you will have a very high possibility to check its "write once, compile anywhere" motto if you later decide to port your Win32 application to Linux or MacOS. In ideal case it will just work, but in reality you would probably need some conditional defines sections.
I have a few years of experience writing Unix command line tools (no GUI experience) in python, C and C++, and only recently crossed into the GUI world (Cocoa and IOS only). I've learned quite a bit of objective-C and am getting to understand how cocoa MVC works. However, one of the apps I am developing needs a Windows version and I was wondering what a good place to start would be given that I have absolutely no Windows development experience.
I was thinking about using Visual C++ 2010 Express as my development platform (because it's free and because I don't need to learn C++). My application is relatively simple, it will have only two windows and spend most of the time running in the background. It will however need to communicate with the OS (load dll's etc) and an online server (HTTP methods) and I'm not sure whether Visual C++ Express edition gives me access to the required API's. Would a Windows Forms application suffice? Am I going about this the wrong way? Do I need to learn C#? Any advice will be appreciated.
If you are already happy with proper c++, visual Studio C++ express should suit you fine. Given that you are not making a complicated GUI, you don't even need to dip into the managed code - C++ express allows you to create proper c++ console and GUI apps. You also don't need to install the platform SDK - it is part of VS C++ express.
Not being managed C++, you will be able to share source files between your various projects. managed c++, despite the c++ in the name, really is a different enough language that it will be annoying to work with if you simultaneously have to deal with iso C++.
--
Note: The native windows API is a C api, not a C++ framework. So it does not provide a rich set of classes in a coherent framework to deal with. On the other hand, while, large, it is actually quite simple to work with.
Also: Given that you are already familiar with Mac development, there is a LGPL (iirc) package called CFLite that builds on windows and that implements the C api that underlays the Objective-C Cocoa API.
If you use its abstratcions you can share a greater part of code between windows and Mac (and other platforms).
Other C++ IDE's you might want to consider:
Code::Blocks
QT Creator
both of which can be configured to use the MINGW port of GCC to windows.
you'll be better off with c++ than c# if you need more "low-level" stuff. Loading dlls (that is, libs) is simple (pragma comment lib...), as is pure HTTP transfer and communication.
So, VC++ with windows form will suffice, and it is "very c++".
You have access to all global APIs, and loading specific apis like http requires only two lines: one to include wininet header, and other lib (libs are actually "references" to dlls).
If you go the C++ Express way then you need to install Windows SDK separately, and set it up for Visual Studio to use it. And you can't use MFC.
I would however, suggest C#, because it feels like putting little toy bricks together. Easier to debug and maintain. Problem with C# is that it has so many library functions that you can not possibly know if what you want is already made to a function. But that's why we are here :-) If you feel that something you want to do should already exist then ask a question about it. One notable feature that C# lacks is zip archives (it has something similar, but not quite). For zips you can use public libraries, like SharpZipLib or DotNetZip.
If I were you, I wouldn't jump into a whole new API so quickly. Have you considered using Python on Windows? Most of the Python packages I've seen are also available for Windows, so you'll feel at home. And if you need some GUI, you can opt for wxPython, pyGTK or something similar.
For Windows specific things, you can always use ctypes. Especially if they're as simple as loading a DLL.
have you considered approaching Adobe AIR? it allows you to deploy on Mac, Linux, Windows, iOS, etc. communicating with and launching native processes has been possible since 2.0 and the the latest 2.5 SDK can target Android OS and TVs. with your experience you should be able to pick up ActionScript3 / MXML in no time.
additionally, there are a handful of free IDEs you can use with the Flex and AIR SDKs. or, if you're a student or low-income developer, you can get a free copy of Flash Builder 4 from Adobe: http://www.adobe.com/devnet-archive/flex/free/
edit: i believe deploying AIR applications on iPhone requires Flash Professional CS5, which includes the packager for iPhone options. at the same time, i've read that AIR and other cross-compilers for iOS are painfully slow, so it's perhaps best to develop natively in Objective-C for iOS.
I want to make an easy to deploy Windows application and was was wondering which programming systems can create totally self contained Windows .exe files?
As a plus, if the same can be done with MacOSX and Linux from the same source this would be a bonus. I took a look at Realbasic but they have since abandoned the single .exe concept.
update: i am looking for something that can run from Windows XP up to Windows 7, no matter what version of .NET is installed. Is this even possible?
Delphi compiles to one executable, and generates native windows executables. So no dependencies to any kind of framework. If you use Free Pascal (fpc) and the Lazarus IDE, you could even develop for Linux and Apple from the same source.
If your using external dll's this would become a bit more tricky, but you could pack them up in your resource file and still maintain the one exe property.
Update 2020: since #Vassilis & #Marco van der Voort commented on this, I would like to update my old andswer and add that go is a very good way to make self-contained executables. Even crossplatform compilation is realy simple.
You can certainly do this with C/C++. Technically the runtime libraries are required, but they should already be installed on any windows, mac or linux system.
With .NET you can compile to an EXE, but of course the .NET framework is required. For newer versions of windows it should be installed by default, but on older versions (XP or older?) it may or may not be there. And of course you couldn't expect mono to be there by default on linux or mac either.
For Windows the following languages are viable:
C (MS, gcc)
C++ (MS, g++, Digital Mars)
D (Digital Mars)
Delphi (Embarcadero??? how do you spell that? just trips off the tongue doesn't it?)
Fortran (Intel, Salford Software)
Visual Basic 6 (MS)
Lua (you'll need a special tool to do it, but it is doable)
C#, VB.Net, F#, J#, etc (assuming that you don't mind using .Net technology)
You can use Tcl/tk. The technology you should research is a "starpack", which combines a runtime executable (a starkit) with a platform-specific runtime (a "tclkit") to create a single-file executable. It's remarkable in the fact that it's not just compiled code, but an entire self-contained virtual filesystem that can include images, sound, data, etc.
This same technology works for many platforms from the same code base. The only thing that is different is the platform-specific runtime. You can even "cross compile" in that you can copy the runtime for multiple platforms onto your dev box and then build starpacks for each platform without having to actually be on each platform.
Tcl can do this, especially through producing starpacks. They can be produced for all platforms from the same code. Note that this also includes all the necessary runtime libraries (except for things like the C library, but you don't want to make that static under normal circumstances).
JavaFX 2.2 supports that. It allows creation of self-contained applications targeting Windows, Mac OS, and Linux.
Please follow this link for more information: http://docs.oracle.com/javafx/2/deployment/self-contained-packaging.htm.
I would recommend taking a look at AutoIt. It is an easy-to-use scripting language that will compile into an exe, so there are no runtimes needed. This would be for windows only though.
http://www.autoitscript.com/autoit3/index.shtml
From the website:
AutoIt v3 is a freeware BASIC-like
scripting language designed for
automating the Windows GUI and general
scripting. ... AutoIt is also very small,
self-contained and will run on all
versions of Windows out-of-the-box
with no annoying "runtimes" required!
c/c++
purebasic
delphi
vb6
i hope this help :)
Here's a good source for a number of basic-like programming languages that build small stand-alone EXEs. Some are cross-platform for Windows and Linux:
www.basic.mindteq.com
You can use Liberty Basic which is easy and cheap, you can easily make stand alone programs for windows but not possible to transfer to MacOS or Linux.
You can do this for Windows with .NET languages using ILMerge
ILMerge is a utility for merging multiple .NET assemblies into a single .NET assembly. It works on executables and DLLs alike and comes with several options for controlling the processing and format of the output. See the accompanying documentation for details.
However:
Currently, ILMerge works only on Windows-based platforms. It does not yet support Rotor or Mono.
QBasic can :-)
I wrote a few command line tools using it!
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
I am working on a new small utility desktop application but I am not really able to choose the GUI framework to use. I have worked on both JAVA,C# and C++, so language is not really a constraint. My criteria are:-
A very well designed architecture, something like QT. It's better if it follows typical C++ design methodologies.
Layout management should be easy, intuitive and not really cumbersome. I hate adjusting pixels on screen.
Its license should be open.
It should look good :)
Mentioned QT seems to comply to all your requirements. QT has "deploy everywhere" attribute, whilst Java needs no deploying at all (it depends on what is use of your utility).
Ad. 2 QT has really convenient GUI designer.
Ad. 3 LGPL. Usually it is enough.
Ad. 4 It is always matter of taste. IMO QT4 looks awesome under linux, but it's windows look'n'feel is correct at best. It's strong point is, that without additional tweaks it almost everywhere looks native.
I've been using Swing, and it works fine. NetBeans (a decent IDE by itself) even supports graphical GUI building.
It's well designed (basically
everything is done with listeners,
functions that are registered for a
certain event). It has bindings, so
you don't have to write code to set
up a value in a text field or read
it out
Layout is not perfect, but
acceptable within NetBeans. It's
WYSIWYG (almost). Look-and-feel can
be changed on the fly.
License is free. Source-code is not
available, I think.
Looks fine on Windows and Linux,
less so on OSX.
You could always try SWT. The advantages of Java with the standard L&F of supported operating systems.
Well designed. Lots of
documentation, and very easy to
develop with. (If you know Swing,
you can pick up SWT in no time.)
I believe layout managers do exist
that support SWT. I'm not positive
about this though, as I typically
don't use layout managers too much.
Uses the Eclipse Public
License. Should meet most of
your requirements.
From Wikipedia on SWT:
SWT is written in Java. To display GUI elements, the SWT implementation accesses the native GUI libraries of the operating system using JNI (Java Native Interface) in a manner that is similar to those programs written using operating system-specific APIs. Programs that call SWT are portable, but the implementation of the toolkit, despite the fact that it is written in Java, is unique for each platform.
Hope that helps you.
I'd suggest wxWidgets if you want to program in C++ or wxPython (the python language binding of wxWidgets if you know or don't mind learning Python.
Architecture is similar to QT I think.
Layout using sizers. Quite easy once you get the hang of it.
Liberal open source license.
Widgets are native on all platforms (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux).