Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 20th Oct 2010 22:22 UTC, submitted by vivainio
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu This is kind of... Well, good news, I suppose? It depends on where you allegiances lie, but it seems like Ubuntu is warming up to the idea of using Qt to develop applications. It's no secret that Qt is a far more advanced development framework than Gtk+, so it only makes sense for Ubuntu - a GNOME/Gtk+ distribution - is looking at it.
Thread beginning with comment 446094
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
...
by Hiev on Thu 21st Oct 2010 00:18 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

I don't complety agree, OSX has cocoa, Windows has MFC and .NET, Linux has ???, what it needs is a dedicated Linux/X.org toolkit, Qt tries to be "everywhere" and for that it gives mediocre results, so drop the multiplatform stuff, is not needed, work in something that works good in Linux and dedicated to Linux.

Reply Score: -3

RE: ...
by Bringbackanonposting on Thu 21st Oct 2010 00:47 in reply to "..."
Bringbackanonposting Member since:
2005-11-16

I don't complety agree, OSX has cocoa, Windows has MFC and .NET, Linux has ???, what it needs is a dedicated Linux/X.org toolkit, Qt tries to be "everywhere" and for that it gives mediocre results, so drop the multiplatform stuff, is not needed, work in something that works good in Linux and dedicated to Linux.


What a strange thing to say. Being multi-platform equals "mediocre results"? Waste of time and resources maybe? I don't agree.
I'm no developer but if I could focus on just one toolkit to write applications with, I'd consider one that takes multi-platform seriously. Linux/GNU (on desktop especially) would be a different place if apps like Firefox/Chrome/Thunderbird for example only ran on one platform.

Reply Parent Score: 4

v RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Thu 21st Oct 2010 01:07 in reply to "RE: ..."
RE[2]: ...
by google_ninja on Thu 21st Oct 2010 04:32 in reply to "RE: ..."
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I am a developer, and yeah, you end up with mediocre results.

Problem #1 is that windows and unix based operating systems take a fundamentally different view of processes and how to do parallel programming. This is why apps like apache/mysql etc while ported to windows, don't work anywhere near as well.

Problem #2 is that operating systems have different capabilities. You end up having to take one of two approaches -- either go for the lowest common denominator, which means you won't be able to take advantage of fancy things on any given os, or build and maintain your own feature set, which is way more work and gives inconsistent results across operating systems.

Problem #3 is that operating systems look completely different. Either your UI looks the same (and out of place) on all operating systems, or you go for the native widget approach. The problem with that is you basically need to maintain different code for each OS, because a checkbox on windows has a different size then on OSX, which is different then gnome, etc. Also, design wise windows and kde are similar, and osx and gnome are similar, but when you mix over those boundaries things just seem wrong. An osx app to a windows user will seem simplistic, and a kde app to a gnome user will just look like a mess.

The best approach a cross platform toolkit can do go for "portability", i.e. minimize the amount of work you have to do to support multiple platforms, not try to maintain compatibility.

You gave firefox as an example, it is a great one. It was developed primarily for windows for years, and until fairly recently, actually ran faster in linux under wine then natively. That is because of how hard it is to do things right behind the scenes on all platforms. What they did do was the whole cross platform UI thing. But chrome has managed to grab 8% of the browser market (mostly from firefox) over the last two years because of how sluggish the firefox UI is in comparison.

Now, all that is a general rant on cross platform toolkits. Qt is actually one of the better ones, and probably would be what I would use if I had to write a cross platform client app. But in a general way, cross platform is a synonym for "worst of all worlds".

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: ...
by Narishma on Thu 21st Oct 2010 00:48 in reply to "..."
Narishma Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't complety agree, OSX has cocoa, Windows has MFC and .NET, Linux has ???, what it needs is a dedicated Linux/X.org toolkit, Qt tries to be "everywhere" and for that it gives mediocre results, so drop the multiplatform stuff, is not needed, work in something that works good in Linux and dedicated to Linux.

MFC is just a (horrible) C++ wrapper around the win32 API. Qt is also a wrapper around the win32 API on Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Timmmm on Thu 21st Oct 2010 15:16 in reply to "RE: ..."
Timmmm Member since:
2006-07-25

Qt is also a wrapper around the win32 API on Windows.


Not true. Qt draws all its widgets itself (but it does use the platform theming API on Windows at least).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ...
by lemur2 on Thu 21st Oct 2010 01:10 in reply to "..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I don't complety agree, OSX has cocoa, Windows has MFC and .NET, Linux has ???, what it needs is a dedicated Linux/X.org toolkit, Qt tries to be "everywhere" and for that it gives mediocre results, so drop the multiplatform stuff, is not needed, work in something that works good in Linux and dedicated to Linux.


Here is a description of the Qt framework:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28framework%29

Here is an incomplete list of packages that use Qt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Software_that_uses_Qt

By no means are all of these KDE packages, and many of them are worthwhile cross-platform packages.

Notable non-KDE packages which use Qt include: VirtualBox, DAZ Studio, Scribus, VLC, SMPlayer, LMMS, QtCreator, QtQuick, Skype, Gambas, Google Earth, Lyx, TeXworks, PDFedit, QCad, Mathematica, MythTV, Avidemux, Avogadro, Arora (browser), MuseScore, NoteEdit, Rosegarden and Transmission (BitTorrent client).

Why should Qt limit itself to Linux?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: ...
by Neolander on Thu 21st Oct 2010 05:13 in reply to "..."
Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

I don't complety agree, OSX has cocoa, Windows has MFC and .NET, Linux has ???, what it needs is a dedicated Linux/X.org toolkit, Qt tries to be "everywhere" and for that it gives mediocre results, so drop the multiplatform stuff, is not needed, work in something that works good in Linux and dedicated to Linux.

Cocoa is multi-platform (Cocoa touch).
.Net is multi-platform (WP7, Mono).
MFC is legacy and is not an universal framework.
Your point ?

Edited 2010-10-21 05:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Thu 21st Oct 2010 13:53 in reply to "RE: ..."
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Cocoa works on Apple platforms, .NET on MS platforms, news at eleven.

Reply Parent Score: 2