"Christophe Prud'homme" <prudhomm(a)mit.edu&gt; writes: Doing the Qt work would be easier because of the Xt support. The reason I ended up doing the GTK port were because part of the port was also doing the language bindings. This would have been more difficult with Qt, as well as requiring a C++ compiler, and the licensing issues (real or imagined). The xemacs-beta archives should have some of this discussion as well as the doc at http://www.cs.indiana.edu/elisp/gui-xemacs/arch.html But doing a native Qt port would be nice for cross-platform reasons. In theory the remaining X specific parts of XEmacs/GTK could be removed and you could have XEmacs on windows use GTK as well. Not to mention the framebuffer (Qt looks much better than GTK on the framebuffer right now, but work is progressing on both). This would be good when people port Qt or GTK to BeOS and MacOS X, etc, etc. -Bill P.