Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 65

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

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    773

    Default

    While Dirk and Linus aren't enthusiastic front-end / application developers, they have found Qt to do much better than GTK for their cross-platform program.
    . Dirk also found the Qt Creator IDE to be incredibly good. Dirk even switched from being a long-time emacs user to now using the Qt Creator integrated development environment.
    I donīt really get that, the name QTCreator implies that its at least 99% a specialiest QT-Apps-Only Development Tool. When I go on their side their is nothing that makes me belive the opposite. Its even a part of the toolkit it self.

    So when Dirk in reallity is not primary a GUI designer how can he switch from the feature-richest Development-plattform and Operating System Emacs to such a gui-only tool.
    Of course u can write c and other stuff even in plugin-less gedit, but that makes it not a good IDE.

    For me it sounds he never was able to use gtk or emacs productive because he always got angree that what he wanted to do, did not work the way he thought would be the best or something. And now he tries to troll with one post somewhere everything he hates, emacs and gtk.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    192

    Default

    QtCreator for the win!


  3. #23
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    264

    Default

    Dirk shared the same view as many with dealing with upstream GTK/GNOME developers being tough, frequent abuse and flame-wars, and accusations from the developers that "you're doing it wrong."
    Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet pot. Or in other words: And the difference between that an Linus attitude is exactly where/what?

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    297

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackiwid View Post
    I donīt really get that, the name QTCreator implies that its at least 99% a specialiest QT-Apps-Only Development Tool. When I go on their side their is nothing that makes me belive the opposite. Its even a part of the toolkit it self.
    It really is not, you can do completely Qt-less project and I nowadays use only QtCreator as soon as there is a line of C++. Completion and refactoring tools are plain magic.

    Also, QtCreator is easily extendable and redistributable with a specific set of plugins, for instance it is used in the Sailfish OS SDK.

    I now only wait for the Python integration to be as good as the C++ one, because IIRC right now it's only doing syntaxic coloration, but there are no refactoring options and no completion, which would be a must-have for PyQt.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cbamber85 View Post
    No it isn't. QML is little more than a DSL that can hook into the C++ Qt libraries, it vastly simplifies the creation of modern UIs hence why it's being pushed. But it doesn't stop anyone writing in C++, in fact it would being pointless writing anything other than trivial GUI applications in QML as it just wasn't designed for that.

    Not entirely true, a new QWidget class was added in 5.2 alone - but I think you're right, this is the general direction for GUI applications. And I personally think it's the right direction.

    This sentence makes no sense.
    You can't use hardware accelerated QML widgets in C++ application without using QML language and Javascript. Using QML and Javascript during runtime isn't necessary.
    Handwritten and generated C++ code are enough if there is good build system with fast rebuild.

    New QWidget class couldn't be added because you can't have two QWidget classes in same namespace. Extending one class isn't big change as Widgets consist of many classes.

    Non-trival QML application is written in 3 languages: QML, Javascript, C++. C++ and Javascript are incompatible with each other. You can't e.g. use regular C++ classes in Javascript code.
    Javascript is very defective language compared to C++ because it is dynamically typed, prototype based, JIT compiled, garbage collected.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    607

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Detructor View Post
    Pot meet Kettle, Kettle meet pot. Or in other words: And the difference between that an Linus attitude is exactly where/what?
    Linus actually accepts patches that make Kernel better. His attitude is much different than gnome developers. Some of them are usually narrow minded morons that suffer from NIH syndrome.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    206

    Default

    have to agree with the complaints about qt5. seems like they started chasing fad stuff recently, bringing in javascript, etc. I guess they figured they get money by targeting big organizations that will invest in toolkits using DSL and leave behind those of us needing more simplicity. We dumped qt during the qt4 years, the network performance and even startup stuff was pretty appaling and at times it seemed like the toolkit was just pushing bugs around. Since our customers are generally production shops we switched over to fltk2, for which I wrote a nice font metrics based layout and resize engine. First comments were that the fltk apps were day and night in performance, lag and interactivity, even using an alternate prettier widget renderer. Note we bought the very first 2 licenses qt ever sold to anyone so its not like we are a bunch of amateurs.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    seems like they started chasing fad stuff recently, bringing in javascript, etc.
    New small and touch-screens require new developments, and an new approach. QML and Javascript allow descriptive and dynamic ("interpreted") management of interfaces, and so they ended up existing.

    Quote Originally Posted by bnolsen View Post
    I guess they [BAD THINGS]
    Stating that... is like waiting that someone answers "I guess you [BAD THINGS]", and this way the never-ending threads start.
    Who knows? Maybe someone is right when he accuses.
    It's no wonder that someone writes "where's muh popcorn? Quick!" in advance.
    Last edited by Nth_man; 01-12-2014 at 10:50 AM.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    3

    Default thx

    Quote Originally Posted by aksdb View Post
    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 :-)
    Thank you for drawing my attention to clang-based autocompletion. I just found and installed this clang-based vim plugin:
    https://github.com/Valloric/YouCompleteMe

    I also found another compiler-base tool, which use gcc analyzer instead of clang.

    Now even if Eclipse failed to provide service, I have more alternatives.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Dhaka,Bangladesh
    Posts
    103

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by marek View Post
    I use Qt Creator for everything too. If you don't know me, I work on Mesa and occasionally on the kernel, libdrm, piglit, and xf86-video-ati. Qt Creator is absolutely the best IDE I've ever worked with and before that I had been a long-time user of Visual C++ (the best on Windows at the time) and tried Eclipse and a couple of others. In Qt Creator, I only use the editing and compiling features and usually just do "Import an existing project", which creates a new project by importing all source files from a specific directory and subdirectories and runs "make" when I build it. It's pretty good even for kernel development. I usually import entire git repos, but with the kernel I only import the drivers/gpu/drm subtree and all the header files used by it. Thanks to the Qt Creator team, I wouldn't have been so productive without it.
    Thanks you marek for your information. I usually use Geany for C++ coding but after reading your comment, I am thinking of giving Qt Creator a try.

Posting Permissions

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