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 289345
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Unconvinced
by leos on Fri 7th Dec 2007 17:18 UTC 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[6]: Unconvinced
by leos on Fri 7th Dec 2007 19:20 in reply to "RE[5]: Unconvinced"
leos Member since:
2005-09-21

You only mentioned Linux vendors.


Yes, because the big unixes are not generally used as desktops. The three you mentioned actually still use CDE quite heavily. Basically there is not much need for a desktop, so the choice is not as important. HP also regularly sponsors hardware and conferences for KDE.

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.


Not really. Look at something like Adobe Acrobat Reader on Linux (v8). They ship all the GTK libs themselves, and most of their UI is made of custom widgets. A lot of the high profile apps on Windows have custom UIs to differentiate themselves. Proprietary apps really don't care much about integration. The file open/save dialog is about the only thing that needs to be consistent, and it is easy to write an app that uses the appropriate dialogs depending on whether it is running on KDE or Gnome. Look at Openoffice for example. They integrate equally well into KDE and Gnome, and they're not based on GTK or Qt.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Unconvinced
by segedunum on Fri 7th Dec 2007 20:39 in reply to "RE[5]: Unconvinced"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

Have they? Quite frankly, I haven't noticed, and neither have many other people. HP and IBM have done nothing with Gnome. Zip, zilch, zero. They're not improving it as a developer's platform, or the desktop in general at all. There's no vision and no political will there at all.

As far as Sun is concerned, they sell something call the 'Java Desktop System' that uses Gnome. Can I develop a Gnome application in Java where I can create a Gnome control panel applet? No. Can I create a Gnome system tray applet using Java? No. Do Swing applications adopt the right look and feel of the Gnome environment? No. Is Netbeans being geared towards Gnome development so that developers can create first-class Gnome applications in Java that fit into the 'Java Desktop System'? No.

As for Red Hat and Novell, most of Novell's Gnome developers have either left, or they're concentrating on maintenance of their own desktop environment and Mono. Red Hat are concentrating on maintaining GTK as-is, and pie-in-the-sky project as as the online desktop.

At one time, I thought Sun, Red Hat and some people from Novell would have got together to map out a future architecture for Gnome, particularly from a development point of view. Due to inertia, people concentrating on their own projects and politics, that just hasn't happened and it probably never will. A lot of the past contributors just seem to have disappeared from view.

Gnome has simply got bogged down between competing interests, politics and the extreme inertia of libraries such as GTK that is preventing it from moving forwards. The only interesting stuff being done at the moment within free desktops are being done by individual contributors and the KDE people.

And again, licensing in the reason. The LGPL is much more commercially friendly than the GPL when it comes to development libraries.

It's funny that this keeps getting brought up, because no company has ever made any statement to that effect.

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.

That's just an exceptionally poor excuse that seems to get regurgitated every time. You can use different toolkits on Windows and Mac, right? People have no problem integrating GTK with Windows and the Mac, right? What's stopping GTK, or Java, integration with KDE?

Reply Parent Score: 4