Subject:
|
Re: Cross platform GUI
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.geek
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:41:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4545 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> To me, compile times are a non issue. However the non-free nature of Qt leaves
> a bad taste in my mouth (and I not even a Open Source zealot). I can however
> develop a Qt based program on my Mac (when I get it form Apple) and then find
> someone to compile a Windows binary for me if I want.
When I decided to use QT for the Linux version of LDView, I already had a
Windows native version, and absolutely no plans of moving the Windows version to
a cross-platform toolkit. Consequently, while I also felt that having the
Windows version cost money was a pain, it didn't have much impact on my choice.
To be honest, I'm very impressed with QT from a technical perspective. I feel
that their class structure and overall design is very good. To me, the
pre-processor requirement is a pain more because it's something that shouldn't
be necessary than due to its increasing compile times. However, I do understand
why they went that route: C++ pretty much sucks for making a really good UI
toolkit, and the preprocessor allowed them to work around some of its
limitations. I'm still not sure I fully approve of their decision to go that
way, but have to admit that it improves the usability of QT (once you get over
the learning curve). I challenge anyone who doesn't think C++ sucks for UI
toolkits to implement something anywhere close to as good as Cocoa (including
InterfaceBuilder) in C++. I content that it can't be done.
One other thing I'll say about QT is that it seems to have extremely good
documentation for this kind of library. So I guess I'd say that, as long as
you're not interested in a Windows binary, QT seems to be a very good choice.
Of course, most people that want something to be cross-platform ARE interested
in a Windows binary.
--Travis Cobbs
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Cross platform GUI
|
| (...) The look and feel is one of the reasons why I rejected GTK (...) To me, compile times are a non issue. However the non-free nature of Qt leaves a bad taste in my mouth (and I not even a Open Source zealot). I can however develop a Qt based (...) (20 years ago, 25-Jan-05, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.off-topic.geek)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
