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 349010
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: QT does not get it right
by segedunum on Sat 14th Feb 2009 21:59 UTC in reply to "QT does not get it right"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

On the Mac, it is about as alien looking as running a windows application in Parallels.

The point just passed right over your head at about 30,0000 feet.

We are talking about developing cross-platform applications here that run on Windows, Macs and on Linux and Unixes and where we are doing that in the most economical and bug-free fashion for the developer. The toolkit solves the cross-platform bugs, not the developer. We are not talking about developing native Mac applications because these aren't native Mac applications - they are cross-platform.

Nothing looks right, edit boxes do not behave normally, they use very strange looking widgets.

They use native Mac look and feel actually, but they have to ensure that the interface looks consistent enough across the platforms you might run it on. Not sure what you've been looking at.

They use their own even loop, own message dispatching system...

Well yer. You don't rewrite an application for each platform to use the native loop and IPC system!

......each one uses the native toolkit on each platform, such as Transmission, and HandBrake; they use Cocoa on Mac, GTK on Linux, and WinForms on Windows, so they all end up looking right on each platform.

Yep, and each 'native' version is out of sync with each other, the developers prioritise the platforms that have the most demand, there is a ton of maintanance for the developers and you get bugs you cannot reproduce on different platforms. They are separate ports, and really, separate applications and they will end up using their own cross-platform glue to keep the common bits together. You obviously missed that part.

Every so called 'cross platform' user interface toolkit has these kinds of problems, although none are as bad as QT on non Unix platforms.

Considering what you get for it, Qt looks pretty decent certainly on Windows and on a Mac. Alas, there is no cross-platform toolkit that uses the 'native' approach for Windows, Mac and Linux that actually seem to work well enough with lots of applications written with them. Like I said, look at SWT's bug list for a good example of what is needed for this approach.

I for one think Google made absolutely the correct discussion: have a cross platform core, and use the native toolkit on each platform to present it to the user.

Like I said, they made the wrong decision because you give up a certain amount of look and feel for being cross-platform, and as Chrome looks completely different to most Windows applications anyway, your arguments about native Windows and Mac applications are null and void.

I'm proved right because SWT and Firefox have all tried to follow this route and we have one outcome - endless complaints about the GTK and Linux ports of Eclipse, Eclipse applications and Firefox and a bug list that never ends.

Reply Parent Score: 4