Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 65

Thread: The Biggest Problem With GTK & What Qt Does Good

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,389

    Default The Biggest Problem With GTK & What Qt Does Good

    Phoronix: The Biggest Problem With GTK & What Qt Does Good

    Dirk Hohndel of Intel's Open-Source Technology Center has talked at length on his experiences in the GTK and Qt tool-kits, including what he views as the biggest problem with GTK...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTU2ODM

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    908

    Default

    Holy sheep, where's muh popcorn? Quick!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    "the biggest problem with GTK is the attitude of the core community."
    Naaoooooooooooooooooooooooo......... I would have never guessed that.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Can't lie, QtCreator is my absolute favorite IDE, and if I'm doing anything even remotely C/C++ I'll use it (Qt or not doesn't even matter).

    On topic: what I was actually waiting for him to criticize was how GNOME folks tend to integrate things in GTK that are relevant to GNOME, but completely useless anywhere else (eg. the slider switch).
    Nevertheless, GLib/GTK has one of the best structured APIs among C libraries.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3

    Default a better IDE than Eclipse CDT?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    Can't lie, QtCreator is my absolute favorite IDE, and if I'm doing anything even remotely C/C++ I'll use it (Qt or not doesn't even matter).

    On topic: what I was actually waiting for him to criticize was how GNOME folks tend to integrate things in GTK that are relevant to GNOME, but completely useless anywhere else (eg. the slider switch).
    Nevertheless, GLib/GTK has one of the best structured APIs among C libraries.
    Except for Qt designer, I can't see how QtCreator can beat Eclipse CDT. I have not used QtCreator for three years, ans thus may fail to see its advancement.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    558

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PengZheng View Post
    Except for Qt designer, I can't see how QtCreator can beat Eclipse CDT. I have not used QtCreator for three years, ans thus may fail to see its advancement.
    I haven't used Eclipse, but from what I saw on my coworkers screens looked a bit painful to work with.. might just be an uninformed impression though.
    Anything Eclipse does that Creator doesn't that I should look into?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PengZheng View Post
    Except for Qt designer, I can't see how QtCreator can beat Eclipse CDT. I have not used QtCreator for three years, ans thus may fail to see its advancement.
    CDT's parser sucks. Well "suck" may be a bit exaggerated, but it's nothing compared to QtCreator (which uses LLVM/clang afaik). I tried a shitload of IDEs for work on a ~1 million line C++ project and CDT just failed parsing it whole. Therefore code completion was worthless - which makes the IDE useless. If I don't have code completion/hints/etc. I might as well use vim, emacs or sublime text (although ST does have a SublimeClang plugin, so .....).

    Anyway: QtCreator worked just fine with that source. It's even pretty forgiving. If it can't parse a certain include, you don't have code completion for that particular thing, but everything else is still handled fine.

    Now I'm waiting for JetBrains to get their C++ IDE out the door. I love IDEA for my Java, Python and Scala projects and if the C++ part will be even half as good, I'm sold :-)

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ancurio View Post
    On topic: what I was actually waiting for him to criticize was how GNOME folks tend to integrate things in GTK that are relevant to GNOME, but completely useless anywhere else (eg. the slider switch).
    Actually, at the very end of the talk, he says in his view it seems like most of the GTK devs seem to see themselves as GNOME developers, and everything they do is for GNOME, and any 3rd party apps are viewed as on their own. While Qt seems much more focused on the 3rd party apps due to it's history at Trolltech and the fact that KDE is built off of Qt is the side project, while those 3rd party apps are what they really focus on.

    The other thing i noticed he seemed to emphasize a lot was the mac/windows support. That seemed like it was one of the primary reasons for the switch. Only 15% of their users are on linux, so giving a 1st class impression on other platforms was important for his project, and while he got the GTK version working elsewhere, he was constantly running into weird bugs. While Qt views those other platforms as 1st class citizens and he's had better luck there.


    Also, for people complaining about javascript - his project does not use QML. Though he stuck it in as something he wanted to look into for the future, to get it running on tablets and phones, but that there was a lot of work to do before that could happen.
    Last edited by smitty3268; 01-12-2014 at 07:58 PM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    202

    Default

    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mark45 View Post
    Holy sheep, where's muh popcorn? Quick!
    *munch munch*

Posting Permissions

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