I see alot of valid points, however I see a few roblems remaining.
Although some people directly port their programs many for various
reasons maintain different codebases on Linux, one good example is
RealPlayer, which also happens to use GTK. It is an example of what I
mean, a progam I would like to use Qt but doesn't and isn't lkely to.
For new developers of commercial software having a free Qt would be
another incentive to use it.
As for C/C++ diferences, both toolkits have bindings for multiple languages.
As for the many toolkits, yes there are, the man office UI (toolars)
aren't standard windows however all the options dialogs and popups do
use Microsofts standard widgets.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 09:11:20 +0000, andrew kar <akar3d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 20:45 -0500, Taylor Byrnes wrote:
> > I hope you all have enjoyed reading my explanation, I'd love to hear
> > some thoughts.
> >
>
> Actually I just had another thought on this; Isn't Gtk just a C toolkit
> and not an OO C++ kit like qt?
> If so and I think that is the case wouldn't it be at least an order of
> magnitude harder to port from an Object-Oriented C++ toolkit to a non OO
> C kit than to annother OO C++ toolkit like qt? It seems to me that you
> would have to start almost from scratch.
>
> ___________________________________________________
> .
> Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
> Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
> More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
>
--
Taylor Byrnes
Rediscover The Web
Download Firefox
http://www.getfirefox.com
___________________________________________________
.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
