OSNews

I agree with you, but I will still wait for 4.1 before I give it another go...

How so? I see the sycophants agree, but do you have any side-by-side comparisons?
(not to pick on you, but I see the same comment from the other side being immediately challenged :-)

Edited 2008-04-02 22:29 UTC

You can note the difference trying to develop an application for each platform, for example:

Windows Vista: The use of to many archaich techniques like Messages and heavy use of interfaces.

Mac OSX: It lacks in clarity of the framework, the use of objetive C doesn't help eather.

GNOME: Despite having many bindings, the lack of a central core of shared libraries is the weak point, the code has a high coupled level, they are getting better thougt.

KDE 4: Centralized and shared libraries with a loosely coupled framework that boost the code reuse, better architecture like MV.

Is just my experience as a programmer.

Uhm, just because you agree about the technical merits of one piece of software compared to another does not make one a sycophant. Before calling some one a "a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite." (dictionary.com) try doing your own research and then give your arguments on why you disagree.

Either way, my preference is KDE, and I look forward to KDE 4.1, that's when I will make the switch from 3.5. The benefits?

Because of QT4, a lot of my favorite KDE apps will be fully functional on Windows, *nix's and OS X. That makes me very happy. Also, QT4's performance and memory footprint is much improved over previous versions, which is always a good thing.

Plasma is the GUI, and when 4.1 comes out, it will mean a much more versatile and customizable desktop, which, in my opinion has always been one of KDE's strengths over it's competitors. Compared to KDE, Windows and Gnome's customization potential is only superficial, and OS X's is almost non-existent. (I expect to get modded to hell for that statement)

Kwin, the KDE window manager, now supports compositing, which is a godsend, as Compiz can be a real pain in the butt to get working. It's gotten a lot better, but not having to change your WM to use compositing is a big win for KDE, especially in light of the competitions heavy requirements (I'm looking right at you Vista).

Solid is the hardware API that abstracts the underlying hardware APIs (Hal, Bluez and so forth) into one developer friendly and sane framework. Because of Solid, The underlying hardware technologies can be swapped out and replaced with new technology, without breaking KDE apps.

That's just the 4 major ones IMO, there is a lot more in KDE4, and when KDE 4.1 comes out, I think it's going to kick ass.

Edited 2008-04-02 22:54 UTC

I agree that OS X APIs are at least as good if not better than the ones available in KDE from the perspective of quickly developing powerful applications. However OS X APIs are only available on OSX, which makes them less than useful for anyone wanting to use more than that platform. For my own apps I want them to be usable no matter what platform I happen to be on. That unfortunately rules out anything done purely for OSX (as well as other nice APIs like the .NET class library, which contrary to all the hype out there, is not even close to cross platform).