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.
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.)
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but GTK has widgets Mac OS X doesn’t have and vice versa.
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?
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.
Great idea. I am excited that it has gone this far this fast.
It would be better if it was ported to Syllable. Anyway MACOSX is Unix.
How many people use Syllable? How many use Mac OS X?
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.
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+.
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?
People want something for nothing. The lure of WORA is strong.