Weblocks is an advanced Web framework written in Common Lisp. It is designed to make Agile Web application development as effective and simple as possible. It uses powerful Common Lisp features like multiple dispatch, the metaobject protocol, lexical closures, keyword arguments, and macros to build abstractions that make Web development easy, intuitive, and free of boilerplate. In addition, control flow is easily expressed using continuations. Things that are hard or mundane in other frameworks become easy and fun in Weblocks
Cerridwen provides geocentric planetary data suitable for a broad spectrum of astronomical and astrological applications, with a focus on our solar system. Among its data you will find, for example, the time of the next sunrise or that of the last full moon, or simply the current tropical position of the sun. It comes with a simple command-line utility and a JSON server, but is also designed to serve as a basis for your own application.
Re: Another set of opinions
> The author mention that you must pay for
> a licencse to port
> your program. He overlooks the fact that
> Qt is already
> available for 3 platforms under the GPL:
> - unix/X11
> - MacOsX (X11 and native)
> - embedded platforms like the Zaurus
Yes, that's a mistake; I already sent the corrections in.
> Note that the embedded version of Qt can
> be used to run on
> the linux framebuffer
Will be added, too.
> On windows, for close source
> development, you can also get a
> license of PyQt which is 5x cheaper
Sorry, but I can't turn the whole internet upside down in order to compare prices; but thanks for the note, maybe it'll help someone.
> It doesn't use true native widgets on
> Windows and maybe
> MacOS X (although it looks pretty damn
> close), which is a
> Qt uses native widgets on Windows XP.
> Latest Qt uses native
> widgets on MacOs/X. For other platforms,
> the look is
> If I look at the so-called weaknesses of
> Qt, I find the article
> biased against it:
> 1. Very business-oriented main Web site
> Sorry, but I don't see how it relates to
> the quality of the
> toolkit. I find the Gtk's site ugly as
> hell but I would not
> mention that as a _weakness_ of Gtk. It
> does not relate to
> the toolkit.
I am not talking about ugliness or design. I am referring to content here. On the Gtk site I see direct links to FAQ, Documentation and Download, while on the Trolltech Site I wasted a lot of time searching for these things.
> 2. Main branch depending on one company
> So what ? Qt is GPL, you can fork it any
> time you want. Given
> that Qt is the income source of
> Trolltech, I don't see
> how they would not develop it. Is it a
> problem that MySQL
> develops MySQL ? Really, I don't see the
> point of this remark.
You can't compare MySQL with Qt. Qt is a huge package, and if Trolltech decides to change the license again, say to some closed source, it will take a lot of time until a strong fork is made, people gathered and development done.
> 3. Commercial developers and people
> wanting portability have
> to pay.
> See my previous remark on the various
> alternative options.
That's ok, but WRT the other toolkits that's a lot of hassle.
> 5. Objects not referred by namespace but
> simple literal prefix
> So ? Apart from a matter of taste, I
> don't see any problem
> here. Gtk object begin with G (or is it
> gkt_ ?)
..it depends on which part you refer to, like g_ for Glib, gtk_ for Gtk and Gdk_ for Gdk.
> and what is the
> point ?
C doesn't have name spaces, so the comparison is not valid.
> Q is shorter to type than 'using
> namespace Qt;' .
Now come on, maintainability and good code design
is better than some savings in typing! Apart from that,
use about 20 Qt things and you start getting more keystrokes than "using namespace Qt;" :)
> personally never had any naming conflict
> with Qt. I would put
> that together with the uic: it is only a
> problem for C++
Maybe, but then again I AM quite a C++ purist :P
Anyway, that's not a Qt bias - all toolkits except FLTK have this problem.