Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 56

Thread: GNOME To Use JavaScript For New User Programs

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    327

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by funkSTAR View Post
    Being Digias bitch is not an option.
    Qt-project is a separate entity from Digia, there's real & complete separation, pop into the Qt-project mail-list, it can be explained in full there.

    Remove the CLA, remove the open core business,
    Not sure what you mean there...

    remove the primary focus on non-linux platforms
    Eh? How are MeR (& it's derivatives: Nemo, Sailfish, Plasma) Maemo/MeeGo-Harmattan, KDE, & countless embedded projects non-Linux platforms?
    Last edited by jalyst; 02-05-2013 at 05:37 AM.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by a user View Post
    i don't think so. we are not talking of extensions but of full featured standalone programs.
    Yeah, but I guess most of the computationally expensive stuff is already implemented in libraries, which are written in C.
    Note that I am not saying that it is in any way faster, just that the overhead for most applications will be minimal.

    Generally I like the concept of doing performance critical stuff in high-performance languages like C or C++, and then interface with them from a scripting-like language.
    A lot of GNOME applications are already using Python, so nothing has changed in this regard.
    As of language preference, good luck finding any group of programmers that agree on which language is the best.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mmstick View Post
    I want nothing to do with Javascript. Why not just use Qt? That's my favourite GUI framework; the most fully featured; cross-compile compatible; easy to learn and program; looks perfect in any desktop environment. After all, actual C++ code is more efficient than any scripting code.
    +1 but on the other hand, don't project like Desura use GTK+ because with Qt they would need to pay for it since they make money from the SW? I see this as the main disadvantage... (Also projects done in C like Darktable can't use it IMHO...)

    BTW I really hate that "let's use web technologies on desktop and desktop technologies on web" GNOMEs approach lately, one more reason to switch fully to KDE despite some inferior features...

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pawlerson View Post
    Why do you think so? Don't you think gnome devs ego is an only thing that stops them from using Qt? I wonder how bloated and slow gnome will be with javascript.
    Because anyone suggesting that GNOME should give up all the work and expertise they already have in GTK and switch to Qt is either trolling, or out of touch with reality.

    As a side note: I really like Qt. For a cross platform project I'd choose that over GTK any day.
    Last edited by kigurai; 02-05-2013 at 06:07 AM.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    +1 but on the other hand, don't project like Desura use GTK+ because with Qt they would need to pay for it since they make money from the SW? I see this as the main disadvantage... (Also projects done in C like Darktable can't use it IMHO...)

    BTW I really hate that "let's use web technologies on desktop and desktop technologies on web" GNOMEs approach lately, one more reason to switch fully to KDE despite some inferior features...
    That's not a disadvantage at all, Desura is simply being cheap. CLA is necessary for the Free Qt Foundation to release under the BSD license. QT is created to give us an open, free GUI framework for all our open source and personal needs. It is a very ambitious project dating back to 1991, and some really neat stuff is added to the framework over time. People who want to create proprietary Qt applications which they will earn money from can simply fork over some dough which also helps Qt development. It's a win-win situation on all fronts. Due to funding from those who buy the licenses, we not only have full time programmers to submit commits at an incredible rate, but the open source community to support development as well. Meanwhile in the GIMP Toolkit camp, they rely completely on volunteer aid, and work with a very limited set of tools in comparison to Qt.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    435

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kigurai View Post
    Because anyone suggesting that GNOME should give up all the work and expertise they already have in GTK and switch to Qt is either trolling, or out of touch with reality.

    As a side note: I really like Qt. For a cross platform project I'd choose that over GTK any day.
    Nations rise and fall, it's all a part of the evolution of humanity and software development alike. Thinking from this standpoint, it's better to stop now and use that experience to build a profile developing for the superior standard than to continue a doomed existence which will inevitably end in more wasted effort.

    This is one of the main problems with Linux; too many different bandwagons trying to reach the same destination; reinventing the wheel several times over. Even if one is far behind the other, they still try to maintain it due to ego; the users are hurt the most by the fragmented effort.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    don't project like Desura use GTK+ because with Qt they would need to pay for it since they make money from the SW?
    You only need to pay for Qt if you are modifying the source code and have no intention of pushing your changes upstream (and then trying to redistribute it obviously).

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Czech Republic
    Posts
    175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cbamber85 View Post
    You only need to pay for Qt if you are modifying the source code and have no intention of pushing your changes upstream (and then trying to redistribute it obviously).
    Really? O_o
    Somebody should really make some FAQ for Qt and its commercial use...

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    90

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Redi44 View Post
    Really? O_o
    Somebody should really make some FAQ for Qt and its commercial use...
    Like here? I don't think they could have made it more obvious... I did miss one caveat, you can't statically link to the Qt libraries without a commercial license.

    In short: You can use Qt libraries for your software and license your software anyway you like, without paying a penny to Digia, as long as you dynamically link to unadulterated Qt libraries.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cbamber85 View Post
    I did miss one caveat, you can't statically link to the Qt libraries without a commercial license. In short: You can use Qt libraries for your software and license your software anyway you like, without paying a penny to Digia, as long as you dynamically link to unadulterated Qt libraries.
    What would stop you from statically linking Qt to your program? It's licenced under LGPL 2.1 or later after all. You can also make modifications to it but you just have to release them like the licence requires.

    The GNU Lesser General Public License or LGPL (formerly the GNU Library General Public License) is a free software license published by the Free Software Foundation (FSF). The LGPL allows developers and companies to use and integrate LGPL software into their own (even proprietary) software without being required (by the terms of a strong copyleft) to release the source code of their own software-parts. Merely the LGPL software-parts need to be modifiable by end-users (via source code availability): therefore, in the case of proprietary software, the LGPL-parts are usually used in the form of a shared library (e.g. DLL), so that there is a clear separation between the proprietary parts and open source LGPL parts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •