Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OpenShot Switches From GTK+ To Qt

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Re

    Smart move moving to Qt. But the developer should really think about his decision of using PyQt instead of Qt/C++.
    If he writes it in Qt/C++, it will be very easy to port it to mobile platforms... And we want an open-source mobile application

    Comment


    • #12
      I've heard of OpenShot just a few times; I've heard of Pitivi far more, but...everytime I've heard Pitivi mentioned, it was to complain about it.

      No Qt vs GTK+ flamewars yet?
      /me ducks

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by Ibidem View Post
        I've heard of OpenShot just a few times; I've heard of Pitivi far more, but...everytime I've heard Pitivi mentioned, it was to complain about it.

        No Qt vs GTK+ flamewars yet?
        /me ducks
        I think everyone realizes that gtk+ is not as suitable for cross platform apps.

        Comment


        • #14
          i'm not a developer, but as far as I understand gtk+ is technologically inferior to Qt. Other than ideological reasons, does gtk have any technical benefits over Qt?

          Comment


          • #15
            smart move

            EVERYONE should switch to QT


            btw out of those 45k I bet 99% came from linux users


            why the fuck would os x or win users need ANOTHER editor?

            why not focus development in linux ??? that's fucked up

            get 45k from linux users, give mac and win users another editor for free

            Comment


            • #16
              huh

              I don't get how some of you feel OpenShot is "Stable" when the number one complaint is it's lack of Stability. Generally you can't edit more than a few minutes of Video without a complete crash. Anyway, I only do some basic cutting and encoding and have found that Avidemux suits my needs for reliability since VirtualDub isn't available on Linux.

              Exactly Pallidus, why Mac and Win need another Editor out of the hundreds already available is beyond me. What he should of done was just ask the Linux community to donate, I'm sure we would've been happy to do so. Now there is a huge burden on him to support three platforms, and I'm sure Linux will not be his top priority anymore.
              Last edited by Mike Frett; 04-26-2013, 04:28 AM.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by garegin View Post
                i'm not a developer, but as far as I understand gtk+ is technologically inferior to Qt. Other than ideological reasons, does gtk have any technical benefits over Qt?
                Well, apparently it is simpler to write GTK bindings for other languages, which is why you'll find dozens of them (Ruby, Lua, Python, Perl, PHP, JS ...),
                whereas the only supported binding for Qt is PyQt AFAIK.
                Also, once you write the necessary GObject binding, a large range of libraries are at your disposal without any further glue code needed.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Ericg View Post
                  OpenShot does NOT use MLT (See the blog post linked in the article, the developer addresses it).
                  Learn grammar, please. OpenShot uses MLT (present tense). OpenShot 2.0 will not use MLT (future). OpenShot 2.0 currently does not exist.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
                    Well, apparently it is simpler to write GTK bindings for other languages, which is why you'll find dozens of them (Ruby, Lua, Python, Perl, PHP, JS ...),
                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28...rk%29#Bindings


                    Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
                    whereas the only supported binding for Qt is PyQt AFAIK.
                    Depends on your definition of “supported”. If by that you mean you can go to a company and hire it to offer support, then yes, the choices are limited because most bindings are community-developed.
                    Qt 5 is also still young. Many bindings are still not ported to Qt 5. Qt 5 comes with JavaScript bindings out of the box, obviously.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qt_%28...rk%29#Bindings



                      Depends on your definition of “supported”. If by that you mean you can go to a company and hire it to offer support, then yes, the choices are limited because most bindings are community-developed.
                      Qt 5 is also still young. Many bindings are still not ported to Qt 5. Qt 5 comes with JavaScript bindings out of the box, obviously.
                      The difference is that using GObject Introspection the language bindings come more or less for free. No one has to actively develop specific library bindings. The language you use just need an implementation of GI.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X