Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wireshark Is Being Ported From GTK+ To Qt

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by kertoxol View Post
    Instead of Qt, why those project don't use WxWidgets? It should adapt on the toolkit you use.
    Thanks, but no. springlobby client which uses WxWidgets is terribly slow and ugly.

    Comment


    • #17
      GTK+ 3.x is increasingly disappointing. First, there was no backwards compatibility with existing GTK+ 2.x themes. Then, the notebook scroll capability was removed. And in the most recent terrible decision from the GNOME people, GTK+ 3.10 now ignores the gtk-menu-images and gtk-button-images settings (cf. https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/co...dc28819ffe0657 and https://git.gnome.org/browse/gtk+/co...93449722198d89), meaning that GTK+ 3.x applications will no longer display icons in menus and on buttons unless the applications explicitly enable them.

      Not to mention the default GTK+ 3.x theme looks considerably worse than QT's default under KDE.

      I wish GTK+ 2.x would have been forked, but since that ship has now sailed, I believe QT is the way to go.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
        qt stuff looks like ass. Guess I'm going back to terminal for network traffic analysis.
        That's the only logical course of action.

        I don't like the look of GTK, so I do my image editing in a hex editor instead of GIMP.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mark45 View Post
          From the article:
          Gtk is a third-class citizen on Windows. Gtk3 hasn't even been ported, the latest "stable" Window$ port is an old version of Gtk2 - not the latest Gtk2 version, but an old version of Gtk2.

          In other words, it makes perfect sense moving to Qt if you care about OSX and Windows. Even on Linux the Gtk OpenGL support hasn't been ported to Gtk3 yet and no plans for doing so.
          I'll just leave this here (looks beautiful on Vista btw.).
          Note that I'm a Qt user myself.

          Comment


          • #20
            I have never programmed using Qt before and after reading this article I got motivated enough and wanted to see how it compares to gtk. Turns out I never got as far as writing any code at all. I could not even get started! All they seems to care about is advertising Qt Creator all over the documentation and tutorial pages. What is wrong with a few lines of "hello world" code and a simple gcc command to compile it like they have for gtk. To me Qt now feels extremely bloated, not simple at all and especially not particularly great. The only thing lacking with gtk is proper cross platform support.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Silverthorn View Post
              I have never programmed using Qt before and after reading this article I got motivated enough and wanted to see how it compares to gtk. Turns out I never got as far as writing any code at all. I could not even get started! All they seems to care about is advertising Qt Creator all over the documentation and tutorial pages. What is wrong with a few lines of "hello world" code and a simple gcc command to compile it like they have for gtk. To me Qt now feels extremely bloated, not simple at all and especially not particularly great. The only thing lacking with gtk is proper cross platform support.
              Advantage of Qt: non-trivial application is fast to develop if developer is experienced and doesn't have to e.g. read Qt documentation most time.
              Disadvantage: Digia doesn't really care about Linux which means Linux specific bug can take months or years to fix.
              Qt Creator isn't necessary for hello world, but it is useful for bigger applications.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                qt stuff looks like ass. Guess I'm going back to terminal for network traffic analysis.
                Go ahead. Qt looks much better than gtk.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Silverthorn View Post
                  I have never programmed using Qt before and after reading this article I got motivated enough and wanted to see how it compares to gtk. Turns out I never got as far as writing any code at all. I could not even get started! All they seems to care about is advertising Qt Creator all over the documentation and tutorial pages. What is wrong with a few lines of "hello world" code and a simple gcc command to compile it like they have for gtk. To me Qt now feels extremely bloated, not simple at all and especially not particularly great. The only thing lacking with gtk is proper cross platform support.
                  http://qt-project.org/wiki/GettingStarted

                  clearly you didn't bother to search through the documentation enough, and yes they advertise using Qt Creator however just really? you're getting hung up over the fact that they're trying to make it easy on beginners by having them just click a large green go button rather than typing in commands at a prompt? Yes you can do it from the command line if you really want to or use alternative build systems like CMake and QBS however do you really want to throw all that extra complexity at a newbie?

                  Also if you really want to learn Qt rather than just troll http://www.ics.com/design-patterns#.UmARWRBV9ao is a great book.
                  Last edited by Luke_Wolf; 10-17-2013, 12:46 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
                    I'll just leave this here (looks beautiful on Vista btw.).
                    Note that I'm a Qt user myself.
                    Learning Vala and how to use it - no thanks, I'd better waste my time learning useful stuff, not another C++ replacement wannabe.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                      Go ahead. Qt looks much better than gtk.

                      I normally don't get involved in these things but I've noticed that Qt nearly always looks off. It's not the widgets, I don't think, but perhaps the way Qt handles padding.
                      I'm really not sure whats the issue but I can't recall having used a Qt app that I liked the look of.

                      Regarding Gtk I think they should drop all pretense of x-platform support and aim for the more realistic goal being the "best"toolkit for Linux only.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Silverthorn View Post
                        I have never programmed using Qt before and after reading this article I got motivated enough and wanted to see how it compares to gtk. Turns out I never got as far as writing any code at all. I could not even get started! All they seems to care about is advertising Qt Creator all over the documentation and tutorial pages. What is wrong with a few lines of "hello world" code and a simple gcc command to compile it like they have for gtk.
                        You obviously didn't look very hard:

                        http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-4.8/gettingstartedqt.html
                        To be fair, this is for Qt 4.8. On the other hand, there are no tutorials at all for gtk3.

                        And there is this for QML:
                        http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.1/qtq...-tutorial.html

                        And this is a bit more advanced, but also doesn't use Qt Creator.
                        http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.1/qtw...dressbook.html

                        In fact the only major tutorial that uses Qt Creator is this one:
                        http://qt-project.org/doc/qt-5.1/qtd...startedqt.html

                        And it does explain how to build and run the application at the very end.
                        Last edited by TheBlackCat; 10-17-2013, 12:53 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                          That's the only logical course of action.

                          I don't like the look of GTK, so I do my image editing in a hex editor instead of GIMP.
                          What... you don't like imagemagick?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                            Go ahead. Qt looks much better than gtk.
                            Your brain must be plugged in backwards.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
                              What... you don't like imagemagick?
                              Too bloated for my liking. who needs all these effects?

                              Your brain must be plugged in backwards.
                              Actually, since both GTK and Qt are fully themeable, this whole discussion is stupid

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
                                Actually, since both GTK and Qt are fully themeable, this whole discussion is stupid
                                They are, and yet no one bothers to use doesnt-look-likeass themes. So, as a developer you can discuss those mythical themes for all I care, but don't blame end-users for saying Qt looks ridiculously 90's.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X