No you wouldn't. Google has stated that they want to offer fully native versions for each platform, and Qt, while a very good platform, is NOT native to Windows and OS X.

This is not news, it's flame-bait.

"It's always interesting to see open source at work. Hanselman's article is an interesting read, as it takes a closer look at how, exactly, the WTL code is being used by Chrome."

Trying to paint WTL in Chrome as some kind of unholy matrimony is just pandering to Microsofties and Haters alike.

I'm referring to the OSNews article title/summary rather than the article itself. OSNews is clearly looking for page views here.

Opera doesn't. It's UI is a disaster on OS X.
QT is anything-but "native".

Actually QT doesn't really use native widgets, it sort of does, but not really. Take a look through the source code, QT handles all of its own messaging and most if its own drawing. Essentially, each widget is connected to something like a peer, kind of like Java Swing. It is horribly complex.

Thats the reason why QT applications look absolutely God awful on the Mac and usually pretty bad on Windows (especially when compared with a true native WPF app on Windows or a Cocoa app on OSX).

There is a reason why Apple ditched the bottom end of WebKit which was QT to a very light platform abstraction layer. There is a reason why most decent cross platform applications use the real native toolkit on each platform and not some library like QT. QT is really only truly native on Unix where QT and GTK ARE the toolkits.

It's more of a tech demo anyway, I don't think anyone seriously believes that Chrome will be a major browser.

Speak for yourself. Chrome is very likely to be a "major browser". Firefox garnered much of its popularity riding on the coattails (and pocketbook) of Google. Remember all those years Mozilla/Firefox sat at low single digit market share?

Qt apps on Windows and OSX feel snappier i.e. respond more quickly than native windows and especially Cocoa apps. So they feel lighter whereas Cocoa apps feel solid / heavy.

[q]Qt apps on Windows and OSX feel snappier i.e. respond more quickly than native windows and especially Cocoa apps. So they feel lighter whereas Cocoa apps feel solid / heavy.

"Qt apps on Windows and OSX feel snappier i.e. respond more quickly than native windows and especially Cocoa apps. So they feel lighter whereas Cocoa apps feel solid / heavy.

"[q]Qt apps on Windows and OSX feel snappier i.e. respond more quickly than native windows and especially Cocoa apps. So they feel lighter whereas Cocoa apps feel solid / heavy.

The major drawback of WTL is the lack of any decent documentation. There's nothing on MSDN, there are no books, there isn't a complete list of classes and what each method does. And this is what annoys me about Microsoft's approach to WTL. Instead of focusing manpower on documenting and developing WTL, they've just dropped the whole thing on Sourceforge. No documentation. No official support. Nada. That makes the barrier to entry for using WTL since the only reliable documentation is the code. That also means you need to be an expert at the Win32 API, ATL and MFC. Nevertheless, there are many commercial products that use WTL. Once you get the hang of it, nothing beats it for developing WIN32_LEAN_AND_MEAN applications .

You should have worked at Sun's PR. "Java Swing is ugly, but it's equally ugly on all platforms. Give us credit for consistency!"

No, I use several, my point is, that 15M of ram is not a lot for an app/framework/toolkit to use. It's not 1995

No you wouldn't. Google has stated that they want to offer fully native versions for each platform, and Qt, while a very good platform, is NOT native to Windows and OS X.