Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Feb 2010 13:23 UTC, submitted by kragil
Graphics, User Interfaces You may remember that back in November last year, I wrote about the lack of a decent Paint.NET-like application for Linux (or, more specifically, for Gtk+ distributions, since Qt has Krita). As it turns out, this compelled Novell employee Jonathan Pobst to code a Paint.NET clone in Gtk+ using Cairo. Version 0.1 is here, and it's remarkably advanced for something so young.
Thread beginning with comment 408331
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Good but...
by robojerk on Mon 8th Feb 2010 17:28 UTC in reply to "Good but..."
robojerk
Member since:
2006-01-10

Whatever happened to Qyoto (C# and .Net bindings for Qt)?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Good but...
by Beachchairs on Mon 8th Feb 2010 19:38 in reply to "RE: Good but..."
Beachchairs Member since:
2009-04-10

The full C# KDE library, and thusly some C# Qt library, is listed as fully supported and mature by www.kde.org

I _think_ it still uses Qyoto. I think C# just hasn't made the same splash on KDE/Qt as it has on Gnome.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Good but...
by moondevil on Mon 8th Feb 2010 21:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Good but..."
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

That is because QT/KDE developers already have C++ on their disposal.

GNOME developers were always against C++, wanting to do OOP in C, which although possible, makes you do by hand lots of stuff which other languages do automatically.

Their love for C# happened just after some of their programmers have discovered some of the productivity gains to use an higher level language.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Good but...
by lemur2 on Tue 9th Feb 2010 00:12 in reply to "RE: Good but..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Whatever happened to Qyoto (C# and .Net bindings for Qt)?


Why would anyone use C# for Qt, when there are perfectly good Qt bindings for Python, C, C++, Ruby and Java?

If you have Qt libraries installed, why would you bother also with Mono?

It isn't as though KDE needs anything like a Paint.NET clone, when it already has the more functional and far more mature Krita program.

KDE doesn't need Banshee ... it has Amarok.
KDE doesn't need FSpot ... it has digikam.
KDE deosn't need a Paint.NET clone ... it has Krita.
KDE deosn't need GNOME Do ... it has krunner.

In each case above, with the possible exception of the last, the native KDE application is better and more functional than the GNOME/Mono try-hard equivalent.

Hence, KDE doesn't need C# and Mono at all, there is no point.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Good but...
by Beachchairs on Tue 9th Feb 2010 03:35 in reply to "RE[2]: Good but..."
Beachchairs Member since:
2009-04-10

Why would anyone use C# for Qt, when there are perfectly good Qt bindings for Python, C, C++, Ruby and Java?

If you have Qt libraries installed, why would you bother also with Mono?

It isn't as though KDE needs anything like a Paint.NET clone, when it already has the more functional and far more mature Krita program.

KDE doesn't need Banshee ... it has Amarok.
KDE doesn't need FSpot ... it has digikam.
KDE deosn't need a Paint.NET clone ... it has Krita.
KDE deosn't need GNOME Do ... it has krunner.

In each case above, with the possible exception of the last, the native KDE application is better and more functional than the GNOME/Mono try-hard equivalent.

Hence, KDE doesn't need C# and Mono at all, there is no point.

C# is a quite nice language to work with. Like Java, it supports what most seem to use in C++ and gets rid of allot of the convolutedness, and Java isn't listed as having a mature KDE binding (neither is C).

What's the point of the whole Banshee/Amarok, Do/Krunner, etc comparison. You wouldn't be using those apps anyways because they are clearly meant for Gnome. I mean, by that logic why support Python bindings for KDE since Exaile isn't as good as Amarok, Deluge isn't as good as Ktorrent, Emesene is comparable to Kmess, etc.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Good but...
by Richard Dale on Tue 9th Feb 2010 18:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Good but..."
Richard Dale Member since:
2005-07-22

"Whatever happened to Qyoto (C# and .Net bindings for Qt)?


Why would anyone use C# for Qt, when there are perfectly good Qt bindings for Python, C, C++, Ruby and Java?

If you have Qt libraries installed, why would you bother also with Mono?

Hence, KDE doesn't need C# and Mono at all, there is no point.
"

Because C# and other CLR based languages in the Mono environment are interesting to program in?

C# is hardly very similar to Ruby or Python. The are no current C bindings.

Many programmers prefer C# over Java, and they are more different than a lot of people would have you believe.

I personally think C# and the Qt/KDE apis are a nice fit, as to me C# feels like a cleaned up C++. For instance, in Qyoto we map Qt's Q_PROPERTYs directly onto C# properties, instead of needing the moc pre-processor as in C++.

Reply Parent Score: 1