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 446376
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Technical superiority to GTK
by phoenix on Thu 21st Oct 2010 17:05 UTC in reply to "Technical superiority to GTK"
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

So, could anybody tell me briefly, what is it that makes Qt so much better? What can you do with Qt that you can't do with the combination of GObject, GIO, GTK, Cairo, Clutter, GStreamer, and so on?


The nicest thing about QT is that it's one framework, one coding style, one set of APIs, one environment, one dependency.

Trying to write a GTK+/GNOME app can lead to multiple coding styles, multiple API styles, tonnes of dependencies, and so on.

It's the different between using an IDE for coding, and using a mishmash of editors and command-line tools.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

Trying to write a GTK+/GNOME app can lead to multiple coding styles, multiple API styles, tonnes of dependencies, and so on.

It's the different between using an IDE for coding, and using a mishmash of editors and command-line tools.

Not sure it's a good comparison. In some cases (e.g. when you really need fine-grained control on the compilation + linking process, like in kernel development), going text editor + command line is just the best option. In other (arguably most) cases, it's IDEs which rock. One should use the right tools for the right job.

On the other hand, I can't think of a situation where tons of dependencies with various coding styles could be a good thing.

Edited 2010-10-21 17:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3