Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Biggest Problem With GTK & What Qt Does Good

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by newwen View Post
    Too bad that Gtk/Gnome devs are such morons, as GTK apps look now much prettier than Qt or KDE apps in my humble opinion.
    In an GTK based DE yes GTK does look better then Qt, but in an non GTK based DE and cross plattform Qt looks a lot better than GTK.
    But i still think Qt looks better in an GTK based environment than GTK does in an Qt based or other plattforms.
    I find most things presented in the video to be valid.
    Last edited by Nille_kungen; 01-13-2014, 12:07 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Yeah. I personally think the biggest weakness is that GTK looks bad on a non-gtk DE(KDE, razor, Windows, Macintosh) while qt will looks native everywhere.

      Comment


      • #48
        http://lwn.net/Articles/562856/ makes clear what GTK+ is for according to the people working on it:

        "GTK+ is primarily intended to be used on the GNOME desktop, using X11 as the backend"
        "GTK+ is targeting laptops as the device form factor"
        "GTK+ must focus on being the toolkit of the GNOME platform first"
        "...people ask whether GTK+ is focused on creating "small apps" or "large applications," and his answer is "small apps." In other words, GTK+ widgets are designed to make it easy and fast to write small apps for GNOME: apps like Clocks, rather than GIMP or Inkscape."
        "Otte said. His answer historically was that GTK3 is awesome and everyone should port, but he said he has begun to doubt that"

        And with that summing up, it's clear that a big, cross-platform app (I was surprised how big it was) like Subsurface shouldn't use GTK.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by ua=42 View Post
          Yeah. I personally think the biggest weakness is that GTK looks bad on a non-gtk DE(KDE, razor, Windows, Macintosh) while qt will looks native everywhere.
          /me is using an Xlib-based WM, and there is no such thing as "native look"

          Both look bad with their default themes.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by curaga View Post
            /me is using an Xlib-based WM, and there is no such thing as "native look"

            Both look bad with their default themes.
            Qt 5 adds Fusion, a new (non-native) style to look same everywhere.

            Comment


            • #51
              That looks better than the bundled themes, but I wouldn't call it good-looking still. The fonts on the Ubuntu and Mac screenshots look terrible (the win7 screenshot is the only one where they look acceptable), though I admit that's not the theme's fault.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by curaga View Post
                That looks better than the bundled themes, but I wouldn't call it good-looking still. The fonts on the Ubuntu and Mac screenshots look terrible (the win7 screenshot is the only one where they look acceptable), though I admit that's not the theme's fault.
                So that's the thing people complain about fonts on GNU/Linux! That they are antialiased. Personally I like how they look, and think the windows ones are bad. Anyway - you can easily turn off font antialiasing in your desktop look settings and the fonts will look like on windows.

                Comment


                • #53
                  My fonts do look good. I just question why the official bling screenshots are done with bad fonts.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by curaga View Post
                    My fonts do look good. I just question why the official bling screenshots are done with bad fonts.
                    For me, it is mostly a matter of DPI.

                    On screens with DPI < 100 I HATE antialiasing, and every kind of LCD-font-enhancing technology like microsoft's ClearType, and I just like to see bitmap fonts.
                    However, as DPI go bigger and bigger through the years, they become unreadable and horrible (because font makers don't make hi-dpi version of their bitmap fonts).

                    But then you need antialiasing and cleartype and so on because we don't yet have DPIs big enough on computer monitors (I don't think it is needed on retina displays however because you can't see pixels anyway).

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by frign View Post
                      Doesn't change the fact Qt is a bloated pos.
                      GTK+ is even more bloated.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by siavashserver View Post
                        Qt 5 adds Fusion, a new (non-native) style to look same everywhere.
                        Not bad, at least it doesn't look ugly as Java's Swing. Nor pretty either.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Clementine is done is qt.

                          http://www.clementine-player.org/screenshots

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Wait... I can use QtCreator for non-qt C++ development? Never thought of this possibility before. Gonna give this a try for sure to see if it's any better than CodeBlocks.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by sarmad View Post
                              Wait... I can use QtCreator for non-qt C++ development? Never thought of this possibility before. Gonna give this a try for sure to see if it's any better than CodeBlocks.
                              Of course. You don't even have to use qmake (which also works fine with non-Qt projects btw.). The IDE has plugins for cmake and autotools based projects.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Ancurio View Post
                                Of course. You don't even have to use qmake (which also works fine with non-Qt projects btw.). The IDE has plugins for cmake and autotools based projects.
                                I use cmake in my project. The way I do it right now is to have cmake generate the required project file for CodeBlocks (.cbp file), so CodeBlocks itself is not aware of cmake. How does QtCreator work with cmake files, does the cmake plugin understand cmake files? I don't remember seeing QtCreator as one of the options in the cmake-gui tool.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X