Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wireshark Is Being Ported From GTK+ To Qt

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

  • #11
    This is a fairly big loss for GTK.

    I was just using Wireshark last night wondering if we'd see a GTK3 update.

    Comment


    • #12
      GTK+ 3.x is increasingly disappointing. First it was no backwards compatibility with existing 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 said applications explicitly enable them.

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

      I really wish someone would have forked GTK+ 2.x. But since I think it's too late now to save that sinking ship, QT seems the way to go.

      Comment


      • #13
        qt stuff looks like ass. Guess I'm going back to terminal for network traffic analysis.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Ericg View Post
          Less interesting work being done on WxWidgets? Qt is actually pushing forward with big ideas and is coming through. GTK... 3.0 was an evolutionary step, not a revolutionary jump, we'll need to see whats on the roadmap for GTK+ 4 to see if they have any big ideas for the future. WxWidgets...I couldnt even tell you when the last release was or what the version # is, let alone any "Ooh pick me pick me!" Features
          wx comes with a *ribbon* widget. And since it uses native widgets where possible, that's a *native ribbon on Windows*. !!!!

          Comment


          • #15
            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


            • #16
              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


              • #17
                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


                • #18
                  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


                  • #19
                    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


                    • #20
                      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

                      Working...
                      X