Ugh, the amount of Gtk+ hatred and misinformation going on here is utterly ridiculous, especially when it comes from people who have very obviously not programmed for it, and have not also programmed with Qt so they can make a proper comparison.
1) Gtk+ doesn't "force" any GNOME anything, just like Qt doesn't force KDE. New features were added recently that GNOME makes use of, but the same features can also be used by other environments, such as tablets or Oculus Rift "desktops" or Ubuntu's Unity or whatever. But they are still and always optional. It also does't force Mutter or Clutter or Wayland in any way: these are all backends that are pluggable. Support for Mir, for example, was very easy to add. Heck, Gtk+ even has an HTML5 backend, letting you run any Gtk+ app in a browser (it has limited use cases, for sure, but still proved Gtk's flexibility). Of course, Qt can do all these things, too. So really one is not so much better than the other.
2) The GNOME foundation manages a whole bunch of projects, and while a few work together, they are still separate projects. Gtk+ is used by GNOME but is not a slave to it. The team is very well aware of the very wide range of applications that rely on Gtk+, as well as a great many legacy apps, and planning for future apps written for emerging UIs.
3) All APIs break upon major revisions, and Gtk+ and Qt are no exceptions. I've upgraded my Gtk+ apps a few times, and have found that the changes are usually quite small and make sense. Generally, Gtk+ adds features but doesn't remove them.
If you hate GNOME Shell, that's a *totally* different issue, with its own justifications. But it really has nothing to do with Gtk+: you would hate Shell if it was Qt-based, and honestly it would look and behave pretty much the same, the user differences are quite minimal. What I think is going on is that people hate GNOME Shell and just want to punish all projects under the GNOME umbrella. That ain't right.
1) Gtk+ doesn't "force" any GNOME anything, just like Qt doesn't force KDE. New features were added recently that GNOME makes use of, but the same features can also be used by other environments, such as tablets or Oculus Rift "desktops" or Ubuntu's Unity or whatever. But they are still and always optional. It also does't force Mutter or Clutter or Wayland in any way: these are all backends that are pluggable. Support for Mir, for example, was very easy to add. Heck, Gtk+ even has an HTML5 backend, letting you run any Gtk+ app in a browser (it has limited use cases, for sure, but still proved Gtk's flexibility). Of course, Qt can do all these things, too. So really one is not so much better than the other.
2) The GNOME foundation manages a whole bunch of projects, and while a few work together, they are still separate projects. Gtk+ is used by GNOME but is not a slave to it. The team is very well aware of the very wide range of applications that rely on Gtk+, as well as a great many legacy apps, and planning for future apps written for emerging UIs.
3) All APIs break upon major revisions, and Gtk+ and Qt are no exceptions. I've upgraded my Gtk+ apps a few times, and have found that the changes are usually quite small and make sense. Generally, Gtk+ adds features but doesn't remove them.
If you hate GNOME Shell, that's a *totally* different issue, with its own justifications. But it really has nothing to do with Gtk+: you would hate Shell if it was Qt-based, and honestly it would look and behave pretty much the same, the user differences are quite minimal. What I think is going on is that people hate GNOME Shell and just want to punish all projects under the GNOME umbrella. That ain't right.
Comment