Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 7th Dec 2007 06:25 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Qt Jambi ships as a single Java library, or JAR (Java Archive) file, plus a handful of tools, including an interface layout and design tool, and an Eclipse plug-in. Trolltech uses its vaunted Qt C++ library as the GUI engine and puts Java wrappers around it. This approach uses the JNI (Java Native Interface) to call the necessary functions from Java. More here.
Thread beginning with comment 289311
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Unconvinced
by evangs on Fri 7th Dec 2007 15:05 UTC in reply to "RE: Unconvinced"
evangs
Member since:
2005-07-07

wxWidgets and gtkmm (and other obscure stuff like FLTK) are hardly in the same league as Qt. GTK on OS X and Windows has been the butt of many jokes. Having a C++ wrapper around isn't going to make it any better.

That leaves wxWidgets which is the most viable contender. I have tried to love wxWidgets. IMHO, it tries too hard to be MFC. Qt's signal and slots mechanism is better than wxWidgets MFC style message maps. They have introduced signals and slots in recent versions but this feels like the red headed stepchild that nobody likes. Most of the examples and documentation still deal with the message map.

Another thing that is lacking for wxWidgets is a decent GUI designer. Qt-Designer on the other hand is awesome sauce. I used it for Java(thanks to http://uic.sourceforge.net/) and I have mostly praise for it. wxWidgets lacks something like this.

The documentation for Qt, the design and the tools are better than the competition. This is what makes it so successful. The dual licensing scheme just makes things sweeter, allowing you to experiment with it for free while writing open source applications and paying for a license when going commercial. Being free (both libre and gratis) has not helped gtkmm or any of the other obscure C++ libraries. wxWidgets is more popular mainly because it provides a much more viable alternative to Qt than the others.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Unconvinced
by jgfenix on Fri 7th Dec 2007 16:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Unconvinced"
jgfenix Member since:
2006-05-25

wxWidgets has good GUI designers like wxFormBuilder or wxDevc++.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 16:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Unconvinced"
mikeurbandz Member since:
2007-10-29

> Being free (both libre and gratis) has not helped
> gtkmm or any of the other obscure C++
> libraries. wxWidgets is more popular mainly because
> it provides a much more viable alternative to Qt
> than the others.

I wouldn't say that gtkmm is obscure, and it provides a very nice alternative to Qt. In fact, gtkmm does a better job of "feeling" C++ like than any others in my opinion.

Also being free has definitely helped Gtk in general. It's the main reason why all the commercial *nix vendors threw their support behind GNOME instead of KDE. None of them wanted to lock their commercial partners into paying huge licensing fees for Qt.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Unconvinced
by leos on Fri 7th Dec 2007 17:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Unconvinced"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

I wouldn't say that gtkmm is obscure, and it provides a very nice alternative to Qt. In fact, gtkmm does a better job of "feeling" C++ like than any others in my opinion.


Yeah, but who cares about "feeling C++ like"? That's not an advantage, that's a detriment. I want productivity and intuitive APIs, not a C++ feel. GTKmm is not exactly a contender on any other platform than Linux anyway.

Also being free has definitely helped Gtk in general.


Absolutely, if it wasn't free, why would you want to use it at all?

It's the main reason why all the commercial *nix vendors threw their support behind GNOME instead of KDE. None of them wanted to lock their commercial partners into paying huge licensing fees for Qt.


A common myth, but there really isn't much evidence for that. SuSe supports both equally, Redhat does Gnome, Xandros does KDE (millions of installs on the EeePC alone), Linspire does KDE, and Ubuntu does Gnome (although they're not really commercial). And running KDE doesn't mean you're locked into Qt at all. You can write apps with any toolkit/language just fine.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Unconvinced
by elsewhere on Fri 7th Dec 2007 17:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Unconvinced"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

Also being free has definitely helped Gtk in general. It's the main reason why all the commercial *nix vendors threw their support behind GNOME instead of KDE. None of them wanted to lock their commercial partners into paying huge licensing fees for Qt.


So that explains the thriving market for commercial gtk-based applications, I guess.

RH, Novell and Sun each had strategic business reasons behind selecting gtk, it has nothing to do with license pricing. Particularly considering that these are businesses that rely on providing high-value in order to generate support revenue from customers for a product they could otherwise get for gratis, it's a little bit galling to suggest that they believe Qt isn't viable under what is basically the same model.

At the end of the day, businesses have no issue paying for tools if they can be shown to make them more efficient. Price is only a single factor in the value equation, and if the cases of commercial organizations, it is often one of the least important ones.

If Qt with support from Trolltech can make a developer more efficient and cut down code development time, the company will see near immediate ROI. The equation can change dramatically in Qt's favor when considering the cross-platform development capabilities, as well. That's how they'll make their decisions.

I will admit, though, that Gtk has an important role to play as a viable alternative to Qt, if only to offer choice.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Unconvinced
by segedunum on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:11 in reply to "RE[3]: Unconvinced"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

In fact, gtkmm does a better job of "feeling" C++ like than any others in my opinion.

I don't think that qualifies as an 'advantage'.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Unconvinced
by JeffS on Fri 7th Dec 2007 17:07 in reply to "RE[2]: Unconvinced"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

I agree with everything you say. Qt is head and shoulders, as an overall GUI (and other) library, and tool set, above wxWidgets, Gtk/Gtkmm, or MFC, or anything else out there.

I think Qt is superior to Swing or SWT, as well. It looks better, it blends with the native environment better, it's faster (much faster in many cases), it's tools are better (although Swing's Matisse is pretty close to Qt Designer, I must say), and it's overall easier to develop with than either Swing or SWT.

Whether that's enough to get existing Java devs to use it in future desktop applications remains to be seen. Certainly, existing Qt/C++ programmers that want to use Java instead of C++ will want to use it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Unconvinced
by Moochman on Sat 8th Dec 2007 13:01 in reply to "RE[2]: Unconvinced"
Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Qt-Designer on the other hand is awesome sauce. I used it for Java(thanks to http://uic.sourceforge.net/) and I have mostly praise for it. wxWidgets lacks something like this.

Wow, I had no idea that a version of Qt Designer for Swing existed! Amazing!!

Reply Parent Score: 4