More Open-Source Participants Are Backing A Possible Fork Of Qt

[Awesomeness]

Qt was forked a while ago already https://github.com/copperspice/copperspice

That's a Qt4 fork, though, not Qt5.

[SpyroRyder]

In addition to what Smitty said... you can't replace Qt with just Gtk. Qt is not a GUI toolkit but an entire Framework Library comparable to the Java or .NET BCLs. GUIs are but a small fraction of it's capabilities which also includes everything from networking to SQL facilities. So you would need to port to not just Gtk, but Boost (or a mishmash of other library), some library or another to provide SQL abstraction, and so on.

Now as a matter of principle I do want to point out that that isn't a bad thing, despite the opinions of certain individuals in this forum. C++'s built in library is extremely... minimal and historically (i.e. before the last decade) was poorly implemented by various vendors... and even then there's been various gotchas that are slowly being fixed in each new iteration of C++ that make the standard library have surprising pitfalls if you're just operating off of patterns rather than having the documentation open... Qt resolves all that by providing the built in functionality you expect in pretty much any other language in one big library (just like the built in library in other languages), as well as also happening to provide a GUI library. Which... also considering we're talking C++ and thus we have to screw around with CMake is really nice. Having a ton of small libraries instead of a few big libraries is really only feasible with languages that have sane (i.e. Declarative) build systems that are downloading off the internet rather than fucking about with with system libs where them being built differently will break your CMake script such as the differences between Boost on Debian vs Fedora... Remind me again why we couldn't have QBS instead?

I would be curious to see a match up of the various things that Qt provides vs various libraries of equivalent functionality. Add in Gtk's pretty good bindings in other languages so you don't have to touch C if you dont want to and I feel like the gap isn't as big as some here and other places try to make it out to be.
That all being said the documentation side of things I have heard is better on Qt's side although that could also just be a side effect of them having a larger amount of money to hire people with.

[Awesomeness]

I would be curious to see a match up of the various things that Qt provides vs various libraries of equivalent functionality.

Windows and macOS support of GTK is pathetic – 2020 and it still cannot use the native File Open window. Android and iOS support is non-existent.

[Guest]

Aside from cross platform stuff, what are some reason that people here would rather fork Qt and take on its maintenance burden than work with Gtk? Cause if your reason is only cross platform that sounds like a good opportunity to sponser someone to really improve the ability to compile and work with other systems

My personal opinion (based upon some fact I realized): the Gtk libs are already PROPRIETARY (If you are GNOME you are ok with them).

[Konstantin.B]

That's a Qt4 fork, though, not Qt5.

Their description says

CopperSpice includes a majority of the Qt 5 classes

Actually I have used neither of them so I can't tell what the current differences are.

[Awesomeness]

My personal opinion (based upon some fact I realized): the Gtk libs are already PROPRIETARY (If you are not GNOME you are ok with them).

Well, the original (and most common outside FOSS circles) meaning of proprietary is "home-grown"/"in-house developed".
"Proprietary technology" = We developed it by ourselves, not bought/licensed from someone else.

GTK is the GNU ToolKit and Gnome is the GNU desktop.

[Konstantin.B]

My personal opinion (based upon some fact I realized): the Gtk libs are already PROPRIETARY (If you are not GNOME you are ok with them).

You should look up the definition of proprietary.

[Awesomeness]

Their description says "CopperSpice includes a majority of the Qt 5 classes"
Actually I have used neither of them so I can't tell what the current differences are.

They've either ported them (if they were available under LGPLv2) or reimplemented them. Newer LGPLv3 code they can't touch. Qt was never licensed using the "or any later version" clause, so they cannot mix v2 and v3 code. CopperSpice exists since May 2012.

[Awesomeness]

You should look up the definition of proprietary.

proprietary adjective
pro·pri·e·tary | \ prə-ˈprī-ə-ˌter-ē \

Definition of proprietary (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of an owner or title holder
// proprietary rights

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proprietary

So that doesn't apply to GTK, Gnome's toolkit that they develop specifically for Gnome applications?

[jaypatelani]

So fork will be called "QtPi" !