Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Sep 2008 14:03 UTC, submitted by John Mills
Thread beginning with comment 330425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: They should have used Qt
by getaceres on Tue 16th Sep 2008 15:55
in reply to "RE[3]: They should have used Qt"
RE[5]: They should have used Qt
by macman on Tue 16th Sep 2008 16:05
in reply to "RE[4]: They should have used Qt"
Skype uses QT only on Linux, On the Mac is uses Cocoa. You can find this out by looking at the exported names from the binary, only Cocoa and standard C names are used. It does not link or use QT in any way on the Mac.
.
Same with tons of other applications, such as Mathematica which uses QT on Linux, Carbon on Mac and the standard GDI functions on Windows.
A lot of people seem to think that if an app uses QT on Linux, it uses QT on all other platforms.
One of big problems with QT is that non Mac users have no idea how terrible QT applications look and behave on the Mac.
Edited 2008-09-16 16:08 UTC
RE[4]: They should have used Qt
by leos on Tue 16th Sep 2008 18:09
in reply to "RE[3]: They should have used Qt"
Opera doesn't. It's UI is a disaster on OS X.
QT is anything-but "native".
QT is anything-but "native".
That's funny because Opera only uses Qt on Linux, and there only in a very limited sense (mostly for stuff like printing). They actually have their own cross-platform toolkit called Swift if I remember correctly.






Member since:
2005-11-10
Opera doesn't. It's UI is a disaster on OS X.
QT is anything-but "native".