OSNews:

OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/20326/Binary_Build_for_Native_Gtk_Mac_OS_X_Port_Released Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:40:31 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331483 http://osnews.com/thread?331483 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.) Thu, 25 Sep 2008 16:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (TLZ_) Comments great idea http://osnews.com/thread?331486 http://osnews.com/thread?331486 Great idea. I am excited that it has gone this far this fast. Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bhuot) Comments RE: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331494 http://osnews.com/thread?331494

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 Thu, 25 Sep 2008 17:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (danieldk) Comments GTK for MacOSX http://osnews.com/thread?331501 http://osnews.com/thread?331501 It would be better if it was ported to Syllable. Anyway MACOSX is Unix. Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:29:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (fithisux) Comments RE[2]: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331563 http://osnews.com/thread?331563

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... Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (lteo) Comments I said screw it a long time ago http://osnews.com/thread?331577 http://osnews.com/thread?331577 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. Fri, 26 Sep 2008 02:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (tsume) Comments RE[3]: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331598 http://osnews.com/thread?331598

"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 Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (danieldk) Comments RE: GTK for MacOSX http://osnews.com/thread?331599 http://osnews.com/thread?331599 How many people use Syllable? How many use Mac OS X? Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (evangs) Comments RE[3]: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331616 http://osnews.com/thread?331616

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. Fri, 26 Sep 2008 10:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (segedunum) Comments RE[2]: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331688 http://osnews.com/thread?331688

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. Sat, 27 Sep 2008 00:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (darknexus) Comments RE[2]: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331701 http://osnews.com/thread?331701 Correct me if I'm wrong, but GTK has widgets Mac OS X doesn't have and vice versa. Sat, 27 Sep 2008 05:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (iain.dalton) Comments RE[2]: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331703 http://osnews.com/thread?331703

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? Sat, 27 Sep 2008 07:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (FooBarWidget) Comments Mono... http://osnews.com/thread?331725 http://osnews.com/thread?331725 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+. Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (memson) Comments RE[3]: If this looks native http://osnews.com/thread?331788 http://osnews.com/thread?331788 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. Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sorpigal) Comments Why use non-native APIs for UIs? http://osnews.com/thread?331863 http://osnews.com/thread?331863 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? Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (chaosvoyager) Comments RE: Why use non-native APIs for UIs? http://osnews.com/thread?331888 http://osnews.com/thread?331888 People want something for nothing. The lure of WORA is strong. Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Wes Felter) Comments