Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Sep 2008 15:29 UTC, submitted by Guido
GTK+ Imendio has released a binary build for the native Gtk+ Mac OS X port. It can be downloaded at the project's webpage. The installed frameworks can be used directly in the Xcode IDE and come with a project template that sets all the necessary flags and variables to build against them.
Order by: Score:
If this looks native
by TLZ_ on Thu 25th Sep 2008 16:49 UTC
TLZ_
Member since:
2007-02-05

Then I'll strongly consider making my app in GTK. PyObjC only confused me so far, I think I have a better chance at grasping GTK. (Or maybe I should stop pretending to be a developer, and just design a mockup and get a _real_ programmer to make it... *laughs*)=

The Apple and GNOME HIG are quite similar, and having apps with similiar UI tends to work well. (Look at transmission for instance.)

Reply Score: 3

RE: If this looks native
by danieldk on Thu 25th Sep 2008 17:46 UTC in reply to "If this looks native"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

Then I'll strongly consider making my app in GTK.


I don't think so. There are screenshots here, I am not sure how up to date they are:

http://developer.imendio.com/projects/gtk-macosx/

I think "native" in this context means that no X11 server is required, but Gtk+ will still draw its own widgets.

PyObjC only confused me so far, I think I have a better chance at grasping GTK. (Or maybe I should stop pretending to be a developer, and just design a mockup and get a _real_ programmer to make it... *laughs*)=


Actually, you may want to try Qt. It uses native widgets on OS X and Windows (on Linux Qt is itself one of the native widgets, of course). It has a very comfortable UI designer that can produce C++ class, or if you use PyQT, a Python class that you can use or subclass. It's really comfortable for focusing on designing the UI, and Qt is also a very nice toolkit to work with (it's more than just a UI library).

There are also some nice PyQt books.

Edited 2008-09-25 17:46 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: If this looks native
by lteo on Thu 25th Sep 2008 23:32 UTC in reply to "RE: If this looks native"
lteo Member since:
2007-03-25

Actually, you may want to try Qt.


Qt's licensing is much more restrictive than GTK+'s though, especially with regard to using Qt in commercial software.

http://trolltech.com/products/qt/learnmore/licensing-pricing/licens...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: If this looks native
by danieldk on Fri 26th Sep 2008 06:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If this looks native"
danieldk Member since:
2005-11-18

"Actually, you may want to try Qt.


Qt's licensing is much more restrictive than GTK+'s though, especially with regard to using Qt in commercial software.

http://trolltech.com/products/qt/learnmore/licensing-pricing/licens...
"

Well, it's just normal GPL, with an exception that allows use with some other licenses as well (some of which are normally incompatible with the GPLv2 or GPLv3).

Yes, if you want to develop proprietary applications with Qt, you have to pay a license fee. The TrollTechs^W^W^WNokia people need food on their tables as well. They used to have special license fees for start-ups and small businesses, and if it makes you or your developers much more productive, it's probably worth it.

This dual-licensing seems to work well, given the rapid progress that they are making:

http://labs.trolltech.com/blogs/

Of course, PyQt for proprietary software is a bit of a kludge, since you need to purchase a Qt license and a PyQt license it seems (it would be nice if you could just by a PyQt license which includes Qt).

Edited 2008-09-26 06:15 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: If this looks native
by segedunum on Fri 26th Sep 2008 10:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If this looks native"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Qt's licensing is much more restrictive than GTK+'s though, especially with regard to using Qt in commercial software.

There's nothing saying you can't use the GPL for commercial work. You are as confused as an awful lot of other people over that.

I suppose the real question is, do you want to write proprietary software that actually works, looks good and that you can actually sell to people? I'm afraid you can't sell software based on what Imendio is doing at the moment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: If this looks native
by darknexus on Sat 27th Sep 2008 00:00 UTC in reply to "RE: If this looks native"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Actually, you may want to try Qt. It uses native widgets on OS X and Windows (on Linux Qt is itself one of the native widgets, of course).

Actually, QT uses _some_ native widgets, namely the window it appears in. However, many of the child controls are far from native on OSX--they don't look native, don't act native, and don't expose information the way native classes do. QT 4 is better, but not there yet on OS X.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: If this looks native
by iain.dalton on Sat 27th Sep 2008 05:20 UTC in reply to "RE: If this looks native"
iain.dalton Member since:
2006-02-28

Correct me if I'm wrong, but GTK has widgets Mac OS X doesn't have and vice versa.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: If this looks native
by FooBarWidget on Sat 27th Sep 2008 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE: If this looks native"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

Actually, you may want to try Qt.


Uh? Last time I checked, Qt was being flamed down by Mac fanboys for looking "totally miserable" on OS X. How is it any better?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: If this looks native
by sorpigal on Sun 28th Sep 2008 20:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: If this looks native"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Mac fanatics will always flame anything that isn't 100% native in look and feel. You know what? The native GTK looks fine! It doesn't have 100% perfect emulation of native widgets and look and feel, which is exactly the same thing that's 'wrong' with Qt for OSX.

If you are not a usability nazi you wont care about these things. Qt apps on OSX are perfectly fine, GTK ones seem to be a little further off and could use some work. But they look fine, they work fine.

People should get over themselves.

Reply Score: 2

great idea
by bhuot on Thu 25th Sep 2008 17:02 UTC
bhuot
Member since:
2008-09-18

Great idea. I am excited that it has gone this far this fast.

Reply Score: 0

GTK for MacOSX
by fithisux on Thu 25th Sep 2008 18:29 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

It would be better if it was ported to Syllable. Anyway MACOSX is Unix.

Reply Score: 0

RE: GTK for MacOSX
by evangs on Fri 26th Sep 2008 06:41 UTC in reply to "GTK for MacOSX"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

How many people use Syllable? How many use Mac OS X?

Reply Score: 1

I said screw it a long time ago
by tsume on Fri 26th Sep 2008 02:12 UTC
tsume
Member since:
2006-07-24

I gave up on toolkits based on the OS. It's much easier to write applications written for the web and include any code which does lots of processing on the web backend.

If you're wanting to write easy UI based apps with nice widgets, give Flex a try. Flex is open source, but the Flex Builder costs. The builder application is worth the money, and you come out with a nice application customers love.

Flex is based on Flash btw, so any browser which has flash supports it. What is very likable is it just works where ever Flash works. No having to deal with JavaScript bugs or changes due to a new browser release.

Reply Score: 1

Mono...
by memson on Sat 27th Sep 2008 18:32 UTC
memson
Member since:
2006-01-01

The Mac OS X version of Mono has included native GTK+ for ages. The controls used to be extremely hit or miss, but their Winforms and GTK# used it, and it an pretty well. Cocoa# was the only native option, but the Winforms implementation was good enough using native GTL+.

Reply Score: 2

Why use non-native APIs for UIs?
by chaosvoyager on Mon 29th Sep 2008 17:01 UTC
chaosvoyager
Member since:
2005-07-06

I can understand making the 'model' and 'controller' bits portable across platforms, but I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would use a non-native API for the 'view' part, especially with all the flamefests I keep encountering regarding inconsistent look and feel.

UIs are not that difficult to write, are they? I have written UIs in Cocoa, HTML, SVG, XAML, QT, GTK, and Swing. It took just a little more effort to write separate UIs for each platform in the language that best matched them (especially when good design tools are available, like the ones that made Swing bearable), and doing so actually ended up saving me effort in the long run.

So what am I missing here? Is it just me?

Reply Score: 1

Wes Felter Member since:
2005-11-15

People want something for nothing. The lure of WORA is strong.

Reply Score: 2