Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 15th Aug 2006 23:22 UTC, submitted by Mitarai
GTK+ The new and re-written version of Glade has taken the streets. Glade 3.0 Requires GTK+ 2.8 and libxml2, Glade 3.0 will expose properties, signals and widgets from GTK+ 2.8, but it has deprecated support for custom widgets. Update: Glade 3 is featured on the latest Gnomejournal.
Order by: Score:
Oooo!
by ma_d on Tue 15th Aug 2006 23:41 UTC
ma_d
Member since:
2005-06-29

I like the widget listing a lot better. It's organized in a much more logical way!

Now, is there a way to text filter it? For those of us who know what things are called but not exactly where to find them in Glade?

Reply Score: 1

v Glade vs. QtDesigner
by butters on Wed 16th Aug 2006 00:04 UTC
RE: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by netdur on Wed 16th Aug 2006 01:32 UTC in reply to "Glade vs. QtDesigner"
netdur Member since:
2005-07-07

Can QTDesigner be integrated into another IDE? oh? QTDesigner is IDE by itself? why do you compare IDE to GUI builder? wait... this is trol, bad boy!

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by superstoned on Wed 16th Aug 2006 12:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Glade vs. QtDesigner"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

> Can QTDesigner be integrated into another IDE?

yes, and for example, it is embedded in kdevelop, since a few years already...
sorry to spoil your fun, but QTDesigner CAN be compared to Glade, and turns out bad for Glade...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by Mitarai on Wed 16th Aug 2006 13:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Glade vs. QtDesigner"
Mitarai Member since:
2005-07-28

You as a KDE contributor shouldn't be the one trolling, people like you give a bad name to the KDE project.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by superstoned on Thu 17th Aug 2006 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Glade vs. QtDesigner"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

well, it's simply that butters is right. parent tried to 'disprove' that by false information, so i gently rubbed the fact that he is wrong in his face... maybe not that nice, but its true.

on the other hand, you're right. maybe i should try to be nice to ppl lying about stuff.

Reply Score: 0

Re: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by Chicken Blood on Wed 16th Aug 2006 00:49 UTC
Chicken Blood
Member since:
2005-12-21

Oooh. Someone's going to hit you for that...

Not me though. I agree with you.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Re: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by h-milch-mann on Wed 16th Aug 2006 14:12 UTC in reply to "Re: Glade vs. QtDesigner"
h-milch-mann Member since:
2005-10-27

Yeah right, qtdesigner is way ahead.
...No wait, you agree that both aren't comparable? You agree KDE contributors should not troll?

To bad you are unable to reply correctly.

Reply Score: 0

glade and gtk2hs
by siti on Wed 16th Aug 2006 01:25 UTC
siti
Member since:
2005-07-06

A few weeks ago I created a simple GUI program using both haskell/gtk2hs and glade. I was surprised how easy it was to make something.

My only experience with creating guis using other technologies is the insane win32 API and Swing. Glade/GTK are amazing in comparison!

I would be of the opinion that Glade/GTK/C (Eclipse-CDT if you want an IDE) has a more rapid development environment than Netbeans/Swing/Java.

Edited 2006-08-16 01:27

Reply Score: 5

Re: RE: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by Chicken Blood on Wed 16th Aug 2006 02:08 UTC
Chicken Blood
Member since:
2005-12-21

Can QTDesigner be integrated into another IDE? oh? QTDesigner is IDE by itself? why do you compare IDE to GUI builder? wait... this is trol, bad boy!

Hmmm, yes Qt Designer can be integrated into another IDE, in fact it has succesfully been integrated into both Visual Studio and KDevelop. No it is not an IDE by itself, just a GUI builder. Even during Qt 3 when it supported code-editing, it couldn't really be considered an IDE...

So what on earth are you on about?

Reply Score: 5

RE: Re: RE: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by sbergman27 on Wed 16th Aug 2006 03:27 UTC in reply to "Re: RE: Glade vs. QtDesigner"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Well, the post he is was replying to does read a bit provocatively. Why else would someone jump in so quickly simply to raz the new release with a QT plug?

Perhaps Trolltech tools are, indeed, lightyears ahead. If they are, that is certainly a high compliment paid to developers using Gnome and GTK+ tools... because the apps are at least as good, if not better. And more numerous.

To do so well with such inferior tools must require exceptional talent and dedication.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Re: RE: Glade vs. QtDesigner
by ma_d on Wed 16th Aug 2006 04:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: RE: Glade vs. QtDesigner"
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

If libglade were a part of gtk I think glade would probably be better off (and I think there was talk of doing just that for gtk 3).

The trouble is, you can design your app in glade, save it to glade files and put it into your application code easily. However, you still end up using gtk code to access things here and there, and so your gain is minor (you don't have to do the big 2,000 lines of setup code, which glade will generate for you and turn it into 3,000 lines). And, you end up depending on one more library.

The only problem I've ever had using glade has been that it crashed occasionally. Glade is a very respectable tool, and it's not bad to use (I like the UI design on glade better as well). If you want to see a good example of how not to do something like Glade look at Visual Editor for Eclipse: If you don't have at least a 2.5GHz P4 or greater you'll never get any work done, and you probably want more than that!

Those aren't exactly massive specs, I know, but there are a lot of FOSS developers working on a lot less.


User's in general, especially on Linux, seem to prefer Gtk to QT. It's easily themeable on every DE and it does work nicely.
QT also has a disadvantage, on Linux, of being a C++ library in a world where people generally don't like C++ (not that everyone hates it, but let's just say Unix/Linux isn't a haven for C++ lovers).

Reply Score: 3

tetromino Member since:
2006-03-02

The only problem I've ever had using glade has been that it crashed occasionally.

Then you would absolutely love Qt4.1 version of Designer. It find that it crashes pretty often, and when it crashes, it deletes your file (or rather, turns your savefile into an empty file). Real fun, especially when you've been working on a trickly dialog gui for a couple of hours! Glade doesn't have all the features of Designer, but at least it doesn't eat your files.

Reply Score: 4

JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

>The trouble is, you can design your app in glade, save it to glade files and put it into your application code easily. However, you still end up using gtk code to access things here and there, and so your gain is minor (you don't have to do the big 2,000 lines of setup code, which glade will generate for you and turn it into 3,000 lines). And, you end up depending on one more library.

People actually used the code generator? :/ I tried it once and almost puked.

It's pretty much the same for anything that generates code though, at least to my eyes.

Glade itself is wonderful though. Often it seems it attracts too much criticism simply because of the relative simiplicity of its design. I guess people figure if something doesn't have a billion toolbars it must be useless. The "button mess" in palette was a bit unattractive, but by no means worse than anything else that's available. I'm glad to see they've organized it.

<3 C#/GTK# + Glade

Edited 2006-08-16 04:55

Reply Score: 5

ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

I don't see the problem with it. You simply remove support.[ch], then you remove the glade referencing junk, and you actually name the objects as you design them in Glade and it generates pretty standard Gtk C code...

You might need to break things up more if you've got a lot of stuff, but I rarely do more than a dialog in Glade anyway.

Lately I've gotten good enough with Gtk that Glade is just a waste of time. I can just write it out quick enough. But Glade is still handy to play with layout behaviour I'm not sure about.

Reply Score: 1

ebassi Member since:
2006-02-28

If libglade were a part of gtk I think glade would probably be better off (and I think there was talk of doing just that for gtk 3).

the plan is to have gtk 2.12 (out january 2007) with support for GtkBuilder, a libglade derivative which breaks a bit the XML definition in order to support all the new widgets and properties; as soon as it's in the other ui builders will add support for this format. the relevant bug is this:

http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172535

Reply Score: 4

butters Member since:
2005-07-08

Well, the post he is was replying to does read a bit provocatively. Why else would someone jump in so quickly simply to raz the new release with a QT plug?

When I use a DE, I use GNOME, and I have since 2.6. As a desktop environment, I think GNOME is excellent. Just take a look at SLED 10. There isn't a KDE desktop that can compete with it on usability.

GNOME as a development platform, however, sucks. Not just GTK+, but also libgnome, bonobo, and glib. In contrast, the KDE development platform is first rate. Trolltech has had a lot to do with this, but the KDE development community has done an outstanding job with the desktop platform (e.g. KIOslaves, KParts, etc.)

The desktop environment space is about all of the commercial Linux vendors pushing GNOME, and yet KDE has at worst a competitive offering. Especially now that SUSE is no longer driving the KDE Project, you'd expect KDE to fall hopelessly behind. But they haven't because they have better tools.

To do so well with such inferior tools must require exceptional talent and dedication.

Or a lot more money than the competition is spending.

Reply Score: 5

Daniel Borgmann Member since:
2005-07-08

As a matter of fact, Glade does its job pretty well and Glade 3 looks like it adressed its major shortcomings and annoyances. So instead of talking about an abstract superiority of QtDesigner and KDE development tools, I believe it would be more interesting and appropriate for this thread to evaluate Glade 3 instead. Have you used it yet and found it inadequate in some way?

Reply Score: 4

Oh for the love of...
by binarycrusader on Wed 16th Aug 2006 05:55 UTC
binarycrusader
Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh the for the love of < insert deity here >. Can't we have a GTK, QT, or KDE thread without any posts about the others? There have been quite enough flame wars and comparisons done between each of them I believe.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Oh for the love of...
by ma_d on Wed 16th Aug 2006 07:23 UTC in reply to "Oh for the love of..."
ma_d Member since:
2005-06-29

Joined: 2005-07-06
Number of Comments: 233 (91 voted up, 7 voted down)

Hmmm, you don't seem to be new here, so how can it be you're actually asking this question ;) .

Reply Score: 2

Custom widgets.
by cole on Wed 16th Aug 2006 06:35 UTC
cole
Member since:
2005-12-31

Does anyone know how you implement custom widgets now?

Reply Score: 1

Matisse
by sard on Wed 16th Aug 2006 19:54 UTC
sard
Member since:
2005-11-16

Couldn't stand swing until Matisse came with Netbeans 5, now it's so ridiculously easy to design a GUI everything else seems like too much work. If only it wasn't Java. Since I've been playing around with Ruby GTK seems like the best bet so a new version of Glade is welcome.

Reply Score: 1

Comparison
by Seth Quarrier on Wed 16th Aug 2006 23:17 UTC
Seth Quarrier
Member since:
2005-11-13

Well I guess that someone should write a article comparing Glade 3 with QTDesigner (and why not throw in GORM for good measure) and then we can all have a good pissing contest for who's tool is better. Until then though, how Glade 3 compares with Glade 2 seems the more pertinent question.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comparison
by superstoned on Thu 17th Aug 2006 10:40 UTC in reply to "Comparison"
superstoned Member since:
2005-07-07

yep, and glade 3 sure looks superior ;)

Reply Score: 0