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 408425
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Good but...
by lemur2 on Tue 9th Feb 2010 00:12 UTC 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[4]: Good but...
by lemur2 on Tue 9th Feb 2010 04:17 in reply to "RE[3]: Good but..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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. "

The whole reason why GNOME users say they shun KDE applications is because of the need to install Qt libraries.

However, GNOME users would have to install Qt libraries these days in order to run some desirable desktop applications such as VLC or SMPlayer, and there are still no GTK+ applications (or GTK# applications) as good as Amarok or K3b.

Anyway ... if the point is that if GNOME users are loath to install Qt libraries and so they miss out on K3b, Amarok, VLC and (relevant to this topic) Krita, then clearly it is equally as reasonable for KDE users to be loath to install the completely un-necessary Mono libraries.

Reply Parent Score: 3

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

RE[4]: Good but...
by lemur2 on Thu 11th Feb 2010 01:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Good but..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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++.


There is a problem with C# ... part of the hooks that C# programs use are Microsoft's patented, closed technologies.

This makes C# and .NET unsuitable for use on a FOSS platform.

Happily, for KDE/Qt, from a users perspective, there is no need to install support for C# and .NET programs, because there are as yet no compelling applications.

As a programmer, you quite possibly find C# and .NET interesting to program, but you may find that your program will be very short on users amongst those that use a KDE/Qt desktop.

Relating all this back to the topic at hand, which is this: "Introducing Pinta, a Gtk+ Clone of Paint.NET". You will probably find that KDE users won't bother with Pinta, because it requires Mono (which isn't installed with KDE by default), and KDE already has Krita, which is more functional, way more stable and mature, and is better integrated into the KDE desktop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krita
http://www.krita.org/
http://www.krita.org/features

It will be a long, long while before Pinta ever reaches parity (in terms of both functionality and performance) with Krita on a KDE desktop, if indeed it ever does.

Edited 2010-02-11 02:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2