Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Jan 2009 09:54 UTC, submitted by Almar
Qt After Nokia purchsed Trolltech last year, doubts arose about how Nokia would handle the dual licensing model of Qt, the advanced cross-platform toolkit which lies at the base of the KDE Free software desktop. As it turns out, these doubts were unfounded, as Nokia today announced it's going to add the LGPL to Qt's licensing model, starting with Qt 4.5.
Thread beginning with comment 343687
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Death Knell of Gtk+
by mallard on Thu 15th Jan 2009 13:13 UTC in reply to "Death Knell of Gtk+"
mallard
Member since:
2006-01-06

Gtk+ suddenly lost the single biggest appeal it has.


You mean apart from being faster, lighter and with more/better bindings to more langauges?

Even from the C++ angle, GTKmm is way better than Qt for the simple fact that it doesn't try to be a complete application framework, replacing the standard library and with it's own build system like Qt, it is just a GUI library and a very good one at that.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Death Knell of Gtk+
by axilmar on Thu 15th Jan 2009 15:04 in reply to "RE: Death Knell of Gtk+"
axilmar Member since:
2006-03-20

"Gtk+ suddenly lost the single biggest appeal it has.


You mean apart from being faster, lighter and with more/better bindings to more langauges?
"

Why Gtk+ is lighter than Qt? it is not, unless you can back up your claims with facts.

Even from the C++ angle, GTKmm is way better than Qt for the simple fact that it doesn't try to be a complete application framework, replacing the standard library


It does not replace the standard library. It complements it. I've built many programs with Qt and the STL.

and with it's own build system like Qt.


Qt does not have its own build system, unless you refer to the Meta Object Compiler, known as the MOC.

The MOC is complementary to the C++ build system of each platform, and it is used to create code. C++ lacks any facilities for introspection, for example, and it also lacks compile-time code creation (beyond templates, which is a limited form), and therefore an external tool was required.

I haven't seen how Gtk+ plus handles introspection. How does Gtk+ do introspection?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Death Knell of Gtk+
by boudewijn on Thu 15th Jan 2009 15:32 in reply to "RE: Death Knell of Gtk+"
boudewijn Member since:
2006-03-05

That bindings chestnut really is becoming frightfully old by now. It is simply not true that bindings for GTK are in any way better than bindings for Qt. And Qt has bindings for the languages people use: Java, C#, Python, Ruby, Php. Tell me, how often have you used the Ada bindings to GTK? How well informed are you about their quality?

As to you other points... Anyone who thinks it's a good thing not to have a complete framework hasn't done real work in the real world.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Death Knell of Gtk+
by mallard on Thu 15th Jan 2009 20:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Death Knell of Gtk+"
mallard Member since:
2006-01-06

As to you other points... Anyone who thinks it's a good thing not to have a complete framework hasn't done real work in the real world.


Except that it becomes a pain if you want to use a _different_ framework. I don't think the GUI library should dictate what Database API you use for instance.

As for bindings, GTK+ has a C API. It is *far* easier to wrap C to other languages than C++ (and when you wrap C++, you usually have to wrap it in C first). This means less developer time/effort is spent on the "plumbing" of bindings with GTK+, leaving more time for the useful stuff.

Edited 2009-01-15 20:46 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Death Knell of Gtk+
by binarycrusader on Thu 15th Jan 2009 21:15 in reply to "RE[2]: Death Knell of Gtk+"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

That bindings chestnut really is becoming frightfully old by now. It is simply not true that bindings for GTK are in any way better than bindings for Qt. And Qt has bindings for the languages people use: Java, C#, Python, Ruby, Php. Tell me, how often have you used the Ada bindings to GTK? How well informed are you about their quality?

As to you other points... Anyone who thinks it's a good thing not to have a complete framework hasn't done real work in the real world.


At the moment, some of the bindings remain better for Gtk, and that's only because the licensing for some of the Qt bindings needs to be changed to match that of Qt itself (once the 4.5 release happens).

For example, PyQt is GPL or commercial license only. If they don't provide LGPL, same as Qt, then it will need to be replaced.

Reply Parent Score: 2