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 289332
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 16:40 UTC 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[5]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:44 in reply to "RE[4]: Unconvinced"
mikeurbandz Member since:
2007-10-29

> A common myth, but there really isn't much evidence
> for that.

There is plenty of evidence. You only mentioned Linux vendors. I wasn't talking about Linux vendors. I was talking about companies like Sun, IBM, and HP. All of these companies have adopted GNOME and not KDE. And all of them have committed not only financial resources, but developer resources as well to enhancing and improving and contributing to GNOME. None of them care about KDE though. And again, licensing in the reason. The LGPL is much more commercially friendly than the GPL when it comes to development libraries.

> And running KDE doesn't mean you're locked into QT
> at all. You can write apps with any toolkit/language
> just fine.

Sure. But they don't look or feel right, and don't integrate fully with the DE. And part of creating a commercial GUI application involves polishing it very well when it comes to GUI and desktop integration.

Edited 2007-12-07 18:51

Reply Parent Score: 1

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[5]: Unconvinced
by sanctus on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Unconvinced"
sanctus Member since:
2005-08-31

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.


Thats make perfect sense, as long as you're in the field of building cross platform application.

But if you're a OS/desktop maker, you want to give your customer a way to build application without any restriction to your target user/developper - Open or commercial. If you use QT, you're somehow telling your customer: "well you paid for our product, but if you want to build closed source app, you must also pay XXXX$ to company Y". Even if it has many advantage (ROI), it will be unwelcome by customer.

The way Trolltech business is, make them perpetual second alternative.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Unconvinced
by mikeurbandz on Fri 7th Dec 2007 18:41 in reply to "RE[4]: Unconvinced"
mikeurbandz Member since:
2007-10-29

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

There isn't exactly a commercially thriving horizontal market for *nix applications in general. Almost all *nix software that isn't open source, is vertical market. And GTK does quite well there. (At least in the sectors of the vertical market that haven't been completely taken over by Java and .NET)

> At the end of the day, businesses have no issue
> paying for tools if they can be shown to make them
> more efficient.

Sure. As long as the prices for those tools are reasonable. For many ISVs, QT's prices are outrageously high.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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