Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 14th Feb 2009 12:55 UTC
Google A major complaint about Google's Chrome web browser has been that so far, it is still not available on anything other than Windows. Google promised to deliver Chrome to Mac OS X and Linux as well, but as it turns out, this is a little harder than they anticipated, Ben Goodger, Google's Chrome interface lead, has explained in an email. It has also been revealed what toolkit the Linux version of Chrome will use: Gtk+.
Thread beginning with comment 348971
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by Kwitschibo on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:09 UTC in reply to "Why not QT?"
Kwitschibo
Member since:
2006-01-17

So? Show me the point.

Qt is not the better Toolkit. It is just another Toolkit. And for all the functions Qt brings besides QT GUI there are also solutions on GTK side.

Edited 2009-02-14 20:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by vivainio on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:23 in reply to "Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Qt is not the better Toolkit. It is just another Toolkit. And for all the functions Qt brings besides QT GUI there are also solutions on GTK side.


There has got to be *some* reason companies were willing to pay thousands of dollars PER DEVELOPER for Qt licenses, when Gtk (& C++ bindings) and Wx were free, don't you think?

Still, I'm not arguing that google should have used Qt to develop this. If the coders want to do it Gtk, they can probably get best results with Gtk (especially when they know it inside out). And it's not like they will convert all of their existing code to GObject mess - just add parts that directly need to interface with toolkit, or use GTkmm.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by sbergman27 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:28 in reply to "RE: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

There has got to be *some* reason companies were willing to pay thousands of dollars PER DEVELOPER for Qt licenses,

And there we have it. QT is *expensive*. Nice strategy, as the World teeters on the brink of a World-wide economic depression.

Edited 2009-02-14 20:29 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by TLZ_ on Sun 15th Feb 2009 08:57 in reply to "RE: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

GTK lacks (proper) OS X support.

Some commercial developers (Adobe) have produced QT-apps that doesn't even run Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by l3v1 on Sat 14th Feb 2009 20:31 in reply to "Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

Qt is not the better Toolkit. It is just another Toolkit. And for all the functions Qt brings besides QT GUI there are also solutions on GTK side.


It's not just the existance of a functionality that counts, it's how it's implemented and how it can be accessed and used, and how well it's documented. What you say can't be enough to base a decision on, you have to try coding for both to see why quite a number of people prefer QT/KDE. Well, you might not see it, or see it the other way around, so what ? Be happy there's the other(s) you can use.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by ardor on Sun 15th Feb 2009 11:58 in reply to "Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
ardor Member since:
2009-02-15

Show a Gtk counterpart to QGraphicsView. One that actually matches its functionality. Also, show me how to something like WolfenQt (google for it) using Gtk.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why QT? Why not GTK+?
by YEPHENAS on Sun 15th Feb 2009 12:20 in reply to "RE: Why QT? Why not GTK+?"
YEPHENAS Member since:
2008-07-14

Show a Gtk counterpart to QGraphicsView. One that actually matches its functionality. Also, show me how to something like WolfenQt (google for it) using Gtk.

http://www.vimeo.com/374006

Reply Parent Score: 1