Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Qt for Mac

michael posted more than 13 years ago | from the widgets-for-everyone dept.

Apple 181

infiniti99 writes: "Looks like Trolltech made a port of their popular cross-platform GUI toolkit, Qt, (not to be confused with the QuickTime movie player) for the Mac. Here is a link to the announcement. There are a couple of screenshots and a demo application is available. Good stuff! Will this further solidify Qt's position as the de facto way to develop cross-platform applications?"

cancel ×

181 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#207101)

Wow without shareware there would not have been PaintShop Pro which rivals the Gimp in most respects for fuctionality yet has always been closed source.

Shareware is good for authors just starting out. They are free to do as they please instead of bowing to the whims of a corporate employer. When you deney them that because you want to shove your "free software model" where they cannot make a dime, without detracting from their code.

I was speaking with a friend who makes a living off his software (note not service or support or tie in products like t-shirts) and was thinking about making a release on linux. He really loves KDE but one of his barriers to entry is that qt (his prefered method of implementation) is not favourable to his model. His choice was simple ignore that platform till they come around or he finds something better.

Companies sell software. Individuals should be able to too. It's not like a shareware programs deny anyone the ability to roll their own. In fact they help scratch itches that some people can't scratch themselves.

Support Shareware that's good and do the same for opensource.

Re:story title (3)

DCMonkey (615) | more than 13 years ago | (#207108)

It may be "just another *nix", but it is not just another X.

Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (1)

cduffy (652) | more than 13 years ago | (#207109)

They're discussing the "de facto" standard for cross-platform apps, not the de-facto standard programming API.

Anyhow, I've written apps for Windows using GTK. You just obviously haven't used them.

bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (2)

cduffy (652) | more than 13 years ago | (#207110)

Funny -- there are many more cross-platform GUI libraries than Qt, and I'd hardly call it the "de facto" standard.

GTK supports a decent number of platforms -- Win32, Unices (both via X and raw framebuffer), BeOS and, yes, an unofficial MacOS port is in the works (though it's still "pre-alpha").

Why would I use GTK above Qt? First, I like C... but more importantly, Gtk is available under the LGPL; if I write a Qt app and want to release it without serious restrictions on what terms I can license under, I need to pay royalties to TrollTech.

wxWindows also supports Windows, X (both GTK and Motif) and the Mac, and is licensed in a LGPL-ish way.

Also, through the use of winelib, TWIN and similar libraries, raw win32 can be pretty portable (though I'm not about to use it).

Re:I take it you don't develop large scale apps? (2)

cduffy (652) | more than 13 years ago | (#207111)

Tsk, tsk -- the word is compartmentalization.

The UI should be a separate (and much smaller) app from the backend and other muck -- that's the way I've always done projects of any significant size. Hence, the frontend (the only part using GTK, Qt or anything similar) need only be a small-scale app.

Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (2)

cduffy (652) | more than 13 years ago | (#207112)

I can tell you with absolute certainty that GTK/Python coding is easier than Qt/C++ coding (and it also addresses the other issues you mention). I'll make no other claims with regard to comparing the two -- and perhaps Qt/Python is easier than Gtk/Python. I'm not here to discuss that.

You should note that my primary objection was not wrt. the language or bindings, but rather the licensing. Surely you can appreciate that a LGPL-equivalent license is more reasonable for licenses than the GPL (and its close kin)?

Oh GOODY! (1)

Amphigory (2375) | more than 13 years ago | (#207124)

Now you can build KDE on Mac OS X and experience a desktop ALMOST as good as Mac's AND expensive hardware simulaneously without having to go through the pain and suffering of downloading linux/PPC!

Progress is beautiful.

--

Re: Possibly for somethings, not all though. (1)

Forge (2456) | more than 13 years ago | (#207125)

When is this lame hypocritical troll going to die?

Most of the shareware I see on Winfiles and TUCOWS were developed using massive expensive development packages like Visual Basic, Visual C++ etc...

I know developers who spent less than $1,000 for the development environment they use. They are either students living on the popular "educational discounts" or using the free development tools like GNU. The rest are using pirated software.

QT's "educational license" is the Free edition (read the license for VB educational package. You can't sell shrink-wrapped software developed on it"). There is no point in trying to compete against pirated software. If your stuff is better they will just pirate that instead.

The real test is; Has anyone seen QT for Windows on a Warez site yet? I haven't been to one of those in years so I wouldn't even remember where to look.

PS: The "Troll" I speak of is your coment. Not you. Or the software company by that name.

My god!!! (1)

Bwah (3970) | more than 13 years ago | (#207131)

The FIRST sensible comment I have read so far in any /. article involving qt!! Congrats man! Of course maybe I'm just happy to see that someone else out there knows the "right way to do it". :-)

Re:Cross platform? (2)

crisco (4669) | more than 13 years ago | (#207133)

but cross-platform development needs to forego this aspect of useability in favor of LCD functionality.

Don't we need to be worried about the LCDs functioning on the Macs? Wasn't there just a story about Macs only shipping with LCDs?

Oh, Least Common Denominator...



Chris Cothrun
Curator of Chaos

coupla notes/questions... (1)

otis wildflower (4889) | more than 13 years ago | (#207134)

  • How is C++ support provided on the Mac? Do you need to compile g++ or is there a wrapper for objc?
  • I like the aqua widgets! Is the aquification pervasive throughout? The screenshots don't look antialiased... Are Qt widgets wrapping the Aqua interface?
  • One word: Konqueror


This is really neat. I doubt I'll put KDE on my Mac, but I would definitely like to use some solid apps like Konqi or KMail (when it stably supports SSL without proxies)..

Your Working Boy,
- Otis (GAIM: OtisWild)

hmmmm... (3)

psykelus (8514) | more than 13 years ago | (#207143)

Will this further solidify Qt's position as the de facto way to develop cross-platform applications?

wow, if I'd said that in a post, it'd be modded down as 'troll'

Easy porting? (1)

david_nelson (8827) | more than 13 years ago | (#207145)

I don't know much about Qt, etc., but does this basically mean that it will all a greater number or programs to be ported pretty easily to Mac OS X?

Re:Easy porting? (1)

david_nelson (8827) | more than 13 years ago | (#207146)

> I would think so, at least wrt OS X (classic is a completely different story).

That's fine with me... I've barely used OS 9 since March 24th, except use my scanner/CD-RW or play an occasional game.

story title (4)

Phexro (9814) | more than 13 years ago | (#207148)

should be "qt for mac os x". which really isn't all that great - os x is just another *nix.

qt for os 9, a year or two ago, might have been interesting news.

this isn't.
---

Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality (1)

Zico (14255) | more than 13 years ago | (#207156)

To be fair, MS does have the bulk of the market at this time, but that is rapidly changing with MacOS gaining fairly steadily on WIN, and *nux making leaps and bounds.

Sorry, but the desktop market share for Windows increased from 89% to 92% over the past year. Linux is at 1% and other Unices are probably less than that combined. The Mac's at 4 percent. Oh yeah, and your evidence for the MacOS gaining steadly is an article from March 1997?


Cheers,

Re:Who needs it? (3)

TWR (16835) | more than 13 years ago | (#207158)

MacOS X sports native GUI support for Java. I've only heard good about it, never tried it though, anyone have experience?

I've got some experience. I have a small (80K) client-side Java app, written in Swing, which tracks my Fantasy Baseball league. It runs well under OS 9's Java (with Swing 1.1.1 installed) and under various Win32 JDKs. Under OS X's Java, one table has its TableHeader smooshed out of existance (and I'm not hard-coding widget heights; I'm using the proper layout managers). Performance is also notably slower. There are several tables with large number of rows (>500) and redraw rates on them are not fast.

Here's the surreal bit. The same machine running the same .jar file within the Classic environment or Mac OS 9.1 is much faster. You can actually have both running at the same time, by using two different launchers.

So Java on Mac OS X has a ways to go still. But having JDK 1.3 present makes up for a heck of a lot of sins.

-jon

Re:QT is the best gui toolkit out there (1)

Shadow Knight (18694) | more than 13 years ago | (#207161)

I'm not a moron, but I can name one GUI toolkit that is at least as good as Qt (if not better), and I love Qt as a Linux/Unix toolkit. What is this magical API? Why, Cocoa/OpenStep, of course! It rocks! You said "name one toolkit," not "name one crossplatform toolkit." And even then, there's GNUstep...

Supreme Lord High Commander of the Interstellar Task Force for the Eradication of Stupidity

Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (3)

Arandir (19206) | more than 13 years ago | (#207162)

No, you don't have to pay royalties. Period. Just pay the professional edition. Once. No royalties, no additional payments, no nothing. It's actually freer in some ways than the GPL/QPL version, because you have zero restrictions upon your own code.

Re:Qt the de facto standard for cross platform ? (1)

rm -rf /etc/* (20237) | more than 13 years ago | (#207163)


Absolutely. All I have to do when I want to convince someone what a pile of crap swing is is to lend them my Java Swing book and let them read the 600+ pages on the Swing document model. To date, no one has yet commited suicide after reading this, but none of them had any clue how it worked either...

true, but... (2)

rm -rf /etc/* (20237) | more than 13 years ago | (#207164)


wxWindows is lagged behind on MacOS releases and it's rather confusing, there are like 3 versions available for the mac and who knows which you have to use. Plus, there's not a convienient binary download for the library which means you need a moderately recent CodeWarrier to actually build it (I have an older CodeWarrier and don't feel like updating it because it works for what I need, and OSX comes with adequate developer tools).

Finally, wxWindows doesn't support OSX. Now I wish I had the skill to take on the project, but I don't. So until someone comes along that is willing to port and maintain wxWindows on OSX, it's not a great option for true cross platform compatability. It's a great toolkit, so I really hope this happens...

Re:story title (2)

rm -rf /etc/* (20237) | more than 13 years ago | (#207165)


osx isn't really just another unix... It's just another OS which has a unix base which is mostly optional and other than that is completely different from most other unixes... The qt port for OSX may be slightly easier than an OS9 port, but not any worth worrying about. My guess is that they did this because they see OSX as giving a boost the desire for cross platform apps on the mac and decided it made sense. Seeing as OSX uses a completely different window system and libraries than any unix or windows, it's not like this was a trivial port, so they must have decided there is some money to be made with OSX that wasn't there for OS9...

Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality (1)

lsdino (24321) | more than 13 years ago | (#207166)

To be fair, MS does have the bulk of the market at this time, but that is rapidly changing, with MacOS gaining fairly steadily on WIN, and *nux making leaps and bounds.

What does an article from 1997 have to do with anything in today's computer market? It's hard to find anything that talks about Macintosh's market share today (except the educational market share, where they're apparently doing quite well). The article you quote here is the #1 article on Google, and all the other articles are similar in content, but also similar in date. I mean come on, this thing is talking about the Macintosh clones - isn't that what nearly killed Apple?

Anyway, I found buried in Google this article [mit.edu] which talks about Macintosh's dwindling market share. It's a little over 1 year after the other article.

Certianly things have gotten better for Apple since then - and it'd be nice to see some recent figures on the subject (anyone have links?).

Re:Wow, this is GREAT! (1)

ENOENT (25325) | more than 13 years ago | (#207168)

Software has always written itself. A human describes what the program needs to do, and voila! an application! That's right, boys and girls, when I tell the computer "jmp .L16", by Cthulhu, that's just what it does! Yow! If I describe enough things for the computer can do, the possibilities are endless.

Seriously: Do you have ANY IDEA how DIFFICULT it is to describe the operation of a program in English prose. Writing good documentation is 5-10 times harder than writing good code, because you don't really know its audience, and you can't just run tests to see if it works.

Rather than waiting 25-30 years for someone to come out with an English-to-C compiler, why don't you learn an actual programming language or six?

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though. (2)

jonathan_ingram (30440) | more than 13 years ago | (#207170)

This is a good thing. The worst aspect of the Windows software scene is the proliferation of shareware apps in areas where the code should be made freely available. By putting up a modest barrier to entry, Trolltach are actively discoraging small scale shareware, and I applaud them for it.

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though. (2)

jonathan_ingram (30440) | more than 13 years ago | (#207171)

If people want to release their coding endeavors as shareware, that is their right.

You are right. I'm not a raving free software bigot. I've nothing against the concept of shareware -- the classic example, as mentioned in a post below, being the early versions of Paint Shop Pro. A decent product at a decent price. What I dislike is the proliferation in the Windows world of small tools which have very little functionality, but which have a grossly oversized pricetag attached to them. The only thing this produces is a flourishing warez culture. For example, how many people do you know that use WinZip and have actually paid for it?

I really believe the state of shareware on Windows has been a significant cause for the endemic illegal copying of software on that platform. Windows users get used to the fact that simple tools will be cripple- or nag- ware until they (or their tech savvy friend) downloads a crack for the product. This attitude then bleeds upwards, infecting the market for full commercial software such as Photoshop and Microsoft Office.

Why do you believe shareware is a good thing?

Qt the de facto standard for cross platform ? (2)

matsh (30900) | more than 13 years ago | (#207172)

> Will this further solidify Qt's position as the de facto way to develop cross-platform applications?

Get real!! The de facto standard for cross-platform development is Java, and will remain so.

Re:QT is the best gui toolkit out there (2)

SpinyNorman (33776) | more than 13 years ago | (#207175)

Well I've never used it, but I think wxWindows may be fairly competetive.

Anyway, I agree - Qt rocks, as does QtDesigner, not to mention the Qt documentation.

It's pretty increadible that something of this quality is available free from a commercial company, or at all for that matter!

Re:Wow, this is GREAT! (1)

Zurk (37028) | more than 13 years ago | (#207176)

eventually it'll come to that..hopefully. trying to get huge amounts of toolkit/library/framework code into the core language specification is one way to do that -- just look at java with its gigantic java.* core and javax.* optional libraries...30+megs worth just for the compiler + libraries. its a bloody pain to reinvent framework stuff for each project and thats hopefully the one thing which gets reduced in the future.
of course java did all that and proceeded to completely do away with bit level manipulation (bitset doesnt count...sorry) which causes a gigantic pain since you have to write bit manipulation stuff which should be part of the core like C does. of course i came from a C/assembly background into java so i may be looking at it from a low level point of view but i'd really like to see all the base stuff already present in a language before i use it along with all the high level stuff.

Who needs it? (1)

Kingpin (40003) | more than 13 years ago | (#207177)


See Java run..
See Java run fast!
See Java run fast on MacOS X!

Uh.. What the.. Anyway, would it be particular hard to build *nix apps on a FreeBSD core? How about all the current ports?

Re:Who needs it? (1)

Kingpin (40003) | more than 13 years ago | (#207178)


I'm not trying to start a flamewar here, BUT! ;) MacOS X sports native GUI support for Java. I've only heard good about it, never tried it though, anyone have experience? (Don't know if I should take the Anon Coward with the big hairy wazoo seriously).

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (2)

MadAhab (40080) | more than 13 years ago | (#207179)

I suspect that overall you are right - but the fact remains that until there is some Aqua port of Gimp, either via GTK port, QT port, or pure carbon or whatever, the most interesting thing for OS X has not yet happened. Frankly, it's probably in Apple's interest to assign some developer to carbonizing The GIMP. Despite some grumbling from Adobe, it is the kind of thing that could create a viable development market for OS X, from the ground up. All it takes is the *perception* of a development community, and The GIMP is the most potent PR tool for Apple that way. Especially because you still hear from many boomer agers "But aren't there more applications for the PC?" It's not true in any meaningful sense, especially for end users, but the perception is still there.

Boss of nothin. Big deal.
Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though. (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 13 years ago | (#207183)

Rather than moderating this discussion, I thought it would be a good idea to clarify that what you get is one year of free upgrades and email support, not a time-limited license.

Nothing on Trolltech's pricing [trolltech.com] page indicates that you are limited to using the copy for one year. Rather, each copy is limited to one developer.

To some the prices might seem "high", but having worked with cross-platform products from other companies ($10,000.00, plus runtime license fees), I can tell you that Trolltech's prices are very reasonable.

I think Trolltech is being extremely reasonable in allowing free use for freely distributed software, while requiring pay-for products to pony up for platform licenses.

If roughly $3000.00 USD for both *nix and WinXX is "too much" for your product's UI, I really have to question the business plan behind the product. Assuming a comparable price differential to add Mac, that would bring it up to about $4500.00 for an enterprise edition for one developer across all three platforms. Even if you're only charging $50.00 for your product, that's only 90 copies to pay for the setup costs. If you can't count on selling a few thousand copies, why do you think anyone would pay for your product?

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (2)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 13 years ago | (#207185)

wxWindows does kick ass, and is by far the best cross-platform API available, unless you count SDL, but wxWindows is much broader in scope than SDL.

The only drawback is being forced to use C++, which is, to me, a disgusting abortion of a programming language.

However, using a minGW32 cross-compiler and wxWindows, i can build native GUI windows apps without having to leave my comfy Linux environment, nor pay Microsoft a dollar for their dev tools. This is A Very Good Thing

Haven't needed to build a mac app yet, but since OS X has yet to really win over the mac userbase, i don't see an OS 9 compatible application as much of a problem, not to mention making your app usable on the vast installed base of macs that won't ever run OS X since theyre not fast enough.

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though. (1)

Bilestoad (60385) | more than 13 years ago | (#207186)

To be fair to Qt, it should be noted that there is significant cost supporting multiple platforms - they need to get something back for their time. These guys are professional programmers devoting all their time to Qt, and the speed with which support is provided, releases are updated and new platforms (Mac) are supported reflects this. Sure it would be nice for this to be Free (or even just free) but there is no way it would be as good so soon.

I'm using Qt now, on multiple platforms, and find it excellent. A lot of thought has gone into this product, and a lot of effort goes into its support, maintenance and improvement.

It's a pity that they don't support the concept of genuine shareware - but I think it's a relic of the days of the BBS. Most "shareware" I see these days is simply crippleware (pay, or you can't save), or time-limited commercial demo.

Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality (1)

Knobby (71829) | more than 13 years ago | (#207192)

You don't need to write cross-platform apps! You can write anything you want.. If it's any good it'll end up being copied! So why not do it right in the first place..

Re:Cross platform? (2)

koryn (76105) | more than 13 years ago | (#207193)

Are there any developers out there really developing cross platform products that target Macs?

This discussion has been obfuscated by the bad summary of the announcement - it's Qt for Mac OS X. From the postings it's clear that a lot of people thought (rightly IMHO) that the phrase "Qt for Mac" meant "Qt for Mac OS 8/9".

Pity we can't mod down poor postings on the Slashdot home page...

Re:Uh (1)

barneyfoo (80862) | more than 13 years ago | (#207195)

No. I wont "battle" it out with you.

I would like to wrap this up though with some concluding remarks, and the leave this thread.

GTK is a great toolkit. Thousands of developers use it every day and it leaves them so happy that they can go home to their girlfriends and have sex. (I'm not sure qt developers have girlfriends). When GNOME2.0 takes over the linux desktop and KDE is left in the waste bucket, I will feel sorry, and pour malt liquer on the grave of my fallen homies. Alas, we're not all meant for this world....

Re:What QT has that gtk doesn't (2)

barneyfoo (80862) | more than 13 years ago | (#207196)

Hey bob, chill out.

Did you hear what Xiphoid said? All those features are in gtk1.3 (development series) Check it out, and stop trolling. Lets try to be friendly and not call people morons that are trying to help you out with your facts.

My opinion: How can a toolkit call itself advanced when it doesn't even support C? At least GTK can claim that it supports over 30 language bindings (some not so well, granted). I beleive qt supports only 2. Last I checked, the only supported version of qt under the GPL was for X11/*nix.

Re:What QT has that gtk doesn't (2)

barneyfoo (80862) | more than 13 years ago | (#207197)

You were the one who initially brought up GTK and said it was sorely lacking compared to qt. Sorry bob, you invited this digression. Anyway, sure, gtk's c++ bindings aren't as consistent and thorough as qt's, but they are very usable, as can be seen by the various projects that use it. Check out "gabber" a gtk-- jabber program. Seems to work fine and actually seem pretty usable. As for the troll that gtk makes "horrendous sacrifices" to be cross-language, well that's a bit over the top. Gtk is a very versatile language, and no, it wont take advantage of every nook and cranny of every language it supports, but that's hardly a big deal. gtk just works. For the well supported languages it has bindings in, it works very well. I know your mission is to promote qt and denigrate gtk, but please get your facts straight.

Uh (2)

barneyfoo (80862) | more than 13 years ago | (#207198)

How can you disprove (or prove) a subjective opinion?

I can't say whether you've proven it or not, but I can sure say you haven't given very many supporting reasons. Silly MsBob. Heh.

Importance of and list of x-plat frameworks (4)

goingware (85213) | more than 13 years ago | (#207199)

You can find a list of application frameworks, many of which are cross-platform and many of which are open source, at the GUI Toolkit, Framework Page [geocities.com] .

Their forwarding link at http://www.theoffice.net/guitool [theoffice.net] seems to be down but the original at Geocities is still up.

Please also read my essay on why it is important to write cross-platform code [sourceforge.net] - with quotes from Judge Jackson on why Microsoft felt it was important enough to put a stop to cross-platform development that it broke the law.

My favorite cross-platform application framework is ZooLib [sourceforge.net] , written by my friend Andy Green and his clients Learning in Motion. It allows you to write a single C++ sourcebase and deliver multithreaded native executables for Mac OS, BeOS, Windows and Linux/XWindows.


Mike [goingware.com]

wxWindows (1)

Satai (111172) | more than 13 years ago | (#207204)

wxWindows [wxwindows.org] , along with its various bindings (wxPython [wxpython.org] , wxPerl, etc...) is actually a very good cross-platform system. It's an entirely abstracted system for developing GUI applications using an OS'es native framework.

I honestly love writing all the apps I need for a windows system under FreeBSD, and only rebooting for debugging. There are a huge number of Device Contexts, Managed Windows, all the widgets you'll ever need... wxWindows is a dream. I swear by wxPython for GUI building.

Re:story title (1)

vorpal22 (114901) | more than 13 years ago | (#207205)

It is just another *nix, but it doesn't use X, so a lot of the API would have to be rewritten / modified for Mac OS X's Aqua.

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (1)

vorpal22 (114901) | more than 13 years ago | (#207206)

There is, unfortunately, still no wxWindows support for Mac OS X (Mac OS 9, yes). And unfortunately, the current working version of wxWindows for Mac OS 9 requires Codewarrior, which is something that a lot of developers do not want to spring for.

Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (1)

vorpal22 (114901) | more than 13 years ago | (#207207)

If GTK+ were to come out for Mac OS X, I would be absolutely thrilled.

However, in the meantime, GTK+ does not exist for Mac OS X (is the port for Mac OS 9 and under, or OS X, which uses a completely different API?). wxWindows does not seem to support Mac OS X (only 9 and under). Thus, I'm extremely excited about the possibility of using Qt.

Re:purdy.... (1)

vorpal22 (114901) | more than 13 years ago | (#207208)

Good question, but I wouldn't suspect that their task was that much easier. OS X runs on a Mach/FreeBSD core, true enough... but it does not use X - instead it uses Aqua and Quartz, so I suspect a large amount of the APIs had to be rewritten.

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (1)

ekidder (121911) | more than 13 years ago | (#207209)

Hey now, I actually use perl/tk for real work. Really :) (we do all of our work in perl and I needed a cross-platform GUI.. soo...)

Re:true, but... (2)

Dominic_Mazzoni (125164) | more than 13 years ago | (#207210)

Unfortunately, the website is a bit out of date. The truth is that the MacOS version of wxWindows has supported OS X (Carbon) for months now, and it now compiles without any modifications using your choice of CodeWarrior 5.3 + the latest Universal Headers, CodeWarrior 6.x as-is, or Apple's gcc on Mac OS X.

Yes, there are some bugs left, but I've been able to work around those without too much trouble, and there are multiple people actively working on this port.

If you like wxWindows and want to port to the Mac, just get the latest code from CVS and join the mailing list.

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (2)

Dominic_Mazzoni (125164) | more than 13 years ago | (#207211)

Read my previous post. wxMac is actually coming along really well, and it supports OS X now.

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (2)

Dominic_Mazzoni (125164) | more than 13 years ago | (#207212)

Have you ever tried writing wxWindows apps? They do an excellent job of mixing the important native controls (scrollbars, buttons, edit text fields) with emulated widgets (tree controls, help viewer, tabbed dialogs) provided for platforms that don't support that particular widget. Try it, it's way better than Java.

Re:Cross platform? (3)

Dominic_Mazzoni (125164) | more than 13 years ago | (#207213)

Are there any developers out there really developing cross platform products that target Macs? In a similar vein, Mac enthusiasts like to focu on aesthetics, but cross-platform development needs to forego this aspect of useability in favor of LCD functionality.

I'm leading the development of Audacity [cmu.edu] , a cross-platform audio editor, for Linux, Windows, and MacOS (both 8/9 and X), using wxWindows [wxwindows.org] . MacOS is a very important platform for me - I love Linux, and I've advertised Audacity on a number of Linux sites, but we still get more MacOS downloads than Linux (and far more Windows downloads than either of those). A year ago, when I started this project, Qt wasn't an option. I think I'd still choose wxWindows, but Qt is definitely looking better.

I'd also disagree with the statement that cross-platform apps have to target the LCD. In Audacity, all of the audio I/O code is written natively for each platform and supports some special features on each one. wxWindows fills in a lot of features that are missing on one or more platforms, for example providing a tree control and file dialog on Linux, but allowing you to use the native ones on Windows. Also, the Linux version of Audacity supports a lot of command-line options that just aren't available for Windows and MacOS, but the MacOS version lets you drag and drop files onto the application, for example.

Also, there are plenty of other cross-platform apps that target MacOS, both 9 and X. How about Mozilla?

Re:Wow, this is GREAT! (1)

igrek (127205) | more than 13 years ago | (#207214)

A human simply describes what the program needs to do, and it just spits out an application.

The problem is that English is probably not the best language to describe "what the program needs to do". Some programming languages are much better at this.

We call the language "natural" when it servers human needs naturally. In this sense, the programming languages that fit the problem area naturally are "natural languages" too...

cost? (2)

small_dick (127697) | more than 13 years ago | (#207215)

is it still $1500 license per developer for commercial apps (like with linux/windows)?

Is the $1500 per year, or is it for a few releases or what?


Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (1)

Lac (135355) | more than 13 years ago | (#207216)

Sorry, but clearly wxWindows is the clear choice for developing cross platform applications. [...] This is the toolkit that AbiSource uses to develope AbiWord.

You have been misinformed. The Abi folks do not use wxWindows to develop Abiword. There was discussion about this in the past on the mailing lists, but the conclusion was that they should use it, not that they did. A world of difference.

Wow, this is GREAT! (1)

BiggestPOS (139071) | more than 13 years ago | (#207217)

Sometimes I've got to wonder when are programming languages going to die and software is just going to write itself? A human simply describes what the program needs to do, and it just spits out an application. 25 years, 30 years? Thats what Im waiting for.

Re:Easy porting? (2)

connorbd (151811) | more than 13 years ago | (#207218)

I would think so, at least wrt OS X (classic is a completely different story). The BSD layer should make the low-level parts trivial.

/Brian

Re:QT is the best gui toolkit out there (2)

Xiphoid Process (153566) | more than 13 years ago | (#207219)

Almost every "feature" you listed was implemented in Gtk first or simultaneously (themes, internationalization). And many things you list are so subjective as to be completely useless and highly contententious "measures" of a toolkits merits (sensible class hierarchy, feature complete widgets, widget speed, proper keyboard focus, clean API.) In fact, the only thing you mention not "released" in gtk is rtl language support, but Gtk 1.3 with Pango is already available for download, so please don't insinuate it is vapour. Please cut the FUD, the only substantial difference between gtk and qt is the philosophy behind their design. They are functionaly equivilent, its just a matter of developer taste. Both toolkits are here to stay, and both sets of developers really get along quite well and are working to make their respective toolkits transparent to the user. Please stop trying to drive a wedge here.

WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standard. (3)

Xiphoid Process (153566) | more than 13 years ago | (#207220)

Sorry, but clearly wxWindows is the clear choice for developing cross platform applications. Part of why wxWindows is so nice is because it uses the native widgets of the platform it runs on. Therefore its look and feel is flawless next to other platform dependant apps. This is the toolkit that AbiSource uses to develope AbiWord.

Just so i'm not completely off topic, I think its great that both of the leading toolkits (Qt, gtk) for unix are becoming more and more cross platform. It can only help to bring native apps to linux.


Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (1)

macshit (157376) | more than 13 years ago | (#207221)

Er, having the `potential' to be the de-facto standard doesn't actually make it the de-facto-standard, however worthy it may seem.

In fact, as far as I can see, there simply isn't any `de-facto cross-platform standard' right now.

Java Performance (1)

WilsonSD (159419) | more than 13 years ago | (#207222)

...Java's biggest drawback as a language (speed).

If you're interested in writing fast Java GUIs you should check out Java Platform Performance. [sun.com] Free chapters are available online.

Code porting (1)

moose_hp (179683) | more than 13 years ago | (#207226)

Well, this sounds like good news for developing cross-plataform apps without a mayor porting-translating job, well this make me thing in some things and problems in matter of porting like:

-little bugs in the "base" plattaform tend to create huge bugs in the ported.
-ported code tends to be huger (for diferences in the system, usually file system and devices manages) and usually dont use the cool capabilities of the new system (like some object handling and so on).
-beta testing must be on diferent stages (base to base, base to ported, ported to bas, etc) and bugs that apear between only some stages could lead to a mayor update in both versions, making also little diferences that tend to enlarge and becoming two (or more) diferent versions than only a port.

Well I hope we developers find porting a bit easier with all this new stuff, now's time to make X the default graphic interface in all plataforms :)

Re:Wow, this is GREAT! (1)

core10k (196263) | more than 13 years ago | (#207228)

Java is mad good, and it gives you your generic bit-level manipulation stuff. If you're annoyed with the 'signed only' thing when manipulating bytes, just do this:

(someByteVar & 255)

This statement will return you an int with the value of the byte as if it was unsigned.

The only thing Java is bad for is parallized (sp) data manipulation. Matrix multiplication will be many, many times faster in hand-coded assembly, for example.

Re:Cross platform? (2)

sv0f (197289) | more than 13 years ago | (#207229)

Are there any developers out there really developing cross platform products that target Macs?

Hmmm. There's Microsoft, Adobe, Macromedia, ...

In a similar vein, Mac enthusiasts like to focu on aesthetics

Actually, they seem to focus on usability, which includes aesthetics among other characteristics.

Re:Qt the de facto standard for cross platform ? (2)

sv0f (197289) | more than 13 years ago | (#207230)

I think, therefore I am. (For this one picosecond anyway--all my memories might be just a static ROM image.)

Is this the Dixie Flatline Construct?

QT3.0 Release Date? (1)

Danious (202113) | more than 13 years ago | (#207232)

Hmm, I notice from the screenshot name this is part of the QT3.0 release, which includes some other goodies I've been looking forward to, like a DB API and data-aware widgets. So, anyone out there care to speculate on a release date?

Oh, and on the subject of de-facto standards, IIRC QT is used by Boland in Kylix, and will be used in the next generation of Delphi6/C++ Builder on Windows. That could be a fair chunk of the developer market, anyone got figures on how big? Regardless, it' a lot of windows developers who will soon have a viable dual-platform developement environment, based on QT.

Another thought, Borland already have JBuilder for the Mac (being coded in Java, it's an easyish port), what odds on a Mac Delphi/Kylix/C++ port coming soon?

Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality (2)

DickBreath (207180) | more than 13 years ago | (#207233)

Why is your link to a "news" story that is four years old?

Lest I be modded up, let me also add: I have used and loved Macs for a long time. I'm just not so fascinated by them anymore. (Now my fascination is Linux.)
--
"Linux is a cancer" -- Steve Ballmer, CEO Microsoft.

slow ticking bomb dropped on microsoft (2)

KevinMS (209602) | more than 13 years ago | (#207234)


this is great news, a cross platform toolkit that is currently very accepted by developers and widely used.

If this had happened a few years ago microsoft would have gone after this just as they went after java and quicktime. But now they have to sit back and watch as a cross-platform toolkit actually becomes the favored toolkit of developers, as it has become, or seems to have the ability to.

Now we need to work on cross-platform C++ :)

Re:QT is the best gui toolkit out there (1)

ericsink (211807) | more than 13 years ago | (#207235)

This is an interesting perspective, and it is the first time I have seen such a concise assertion that the wrapper toolkits are inferior to the have-their-own-widgets variety. My problem with kits like Gtk and Qt, which provide their own substitutes for all the system native widgets, is that the resulting app never feel native. Some of the kits seem to do an astonishing job, but the resulting apps are still not quite right. Dogs bark at them, and children are not fooled.
-- Eric W. Sink

Re:Wow, this is GREAT! (1)

The Ape With No Name (213531) | more than 13 years ago | (#207236)

One word (or acronym): Perl.

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (2)

BlowCat (216402) | more than 13 years ago | (#207237)

They haven't changed anything. There are no traces of wxWindows in the CVS version of AbiWord.

By the way, the parent post is not offtopic. It's an informative reply to a karma whore trying to look informative without checking facts. It so easy too fool moderators :-(

Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality (4)

OCatenac (218161) | more than 13 years ago | (#207238)

Keep thinking that. Even Microsoft is starting to wake up to the reality that Windows on a desktop PC is becoming less and less important. Why do you think they brought out C# (aka Project Cool aka Java Killer) and they've started this whole .NET initiative? They're trying to find some way to extend their monopoly to the web.

Furthermore Microsoft is starting to realize that people aren't upgrading at the furious rate they used to. This is why Microsoft is seriously considering trying to shaft all those folks who buy their OS by forcing them to pay a monthly fee in order to use it. Personally, I'll be glad when this happens because it will make a free OS that much more appealing to a lot of people. Having to pay a Microsoft tax won't go over well.

Onorio Catenacci


--
"And that's the world in a nutshell -- an appropriate receptacle."

Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (2)

infiniti99 (219973) | more than 13 years ago | (#207239)

There are many libraries, yes.

However, I can't name that many crossplatform applications. Mozilla/Netscape come to mind, but those use a custom widget set. I believe Opera uses Qt, but I am not sure (someone correct me if I'm wrong). Limewire is the only Java application I can name. Really, there are barely any crossplatform apps out there.

Zoolib is a nice idea, although it is barely usable. wxWindows sounds like a good library, although I can't name any applications built with it. That leaves GTK and Qt, of which I can name _many_ applications. However, win32 GTK applications don't look/behave like native Windows apps (not to mention that it is beta).

So it could be reasoned that Qt is the de facto crossplatform standard, simply because it has the most potential. In other words, all these developers using the GPL Qt for Linux know a very powerful, truly crossplatform API.

-Justin

Nitpick (3)

infiniti99 (219973) | more than 13 years ago | (#207242)

The Qt license is a one-time fee per-developer (not per-machine). It only is a yearly fee if you want support.

Re:Cross platform? (2)

kol-chaim (220492) | more than 13 years ago | (#207243)

MSoft doesn't write anything cross-platform. Their software for Mac is totally rewritten from spec, which explains why the hideous bugs in Mac IE5 are so different from the hideous bugs in MSWin IE5. I believe some of the code is reused, but even the dev teams are entirely distinct. MSoft's support of Mac software is non-existent as well: just try to find a patch, let alone documentation distinct from the windows docs.

Re: Possibly for somethings, not all though. (2)

ConsumedByTV (243497) | more than 13 years ago | (#207245)

I spend much less then $1000 for my environment.
I use Vim.
It does everything I could want. But thats for webdesign (php, perl, html, javascript, etc) so no one really cares what I have to say...


The Lottery:

Java -- more real than you think (3)

HaiLHaiL (250648) | more than 13 years ago | (#207246)

Many people (many slashdotters included) seem to discount the possbility of using Java for real cross-platform desktop apps... I wouldn't be so quick to do so, however. Look at apps like LimeWire [limewire.com] , Sun's Forte Java IDE [sun.com] , and the number of sourceforge projects [sourceforge.net] done in Java (though admittedly many of these aren't desktop apps). Hardware is cheap right now, eliminating Java's biggest drawback as a language (speed). Many people are now learning programming with Java (like I did), and it has many appeals as a language, cross-platform ability being only one of them. Java's a desktop contender, and will only grow as such.

Now if only Sun would actually open Java's source [slashdot.org] ...

Re:Qt the de facto standard for cross platform ? (1)

kilgore_47 (262118) | more than 13 years ago | (#207247)

while i dislike clientside java as much as the next person who ever used ie5 for mac, I'm inclined to mention one great use for it: The "limewire" gnutella client (done with swing, i think) looks the same on macos 9, macos X, and win2k.
---

Power of Unix at work (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 13 years ago | (#207248)

This is what steve jobs was talking about when he promised to base osx on unix. Almost all unix apps will be ported over, which opens a whole new market for those software developers (imagine what loki is thinking now :-). Apple believes in freeware/shareware/public domain software. They want to spread that message. While i dont know much about qt, i do know that this is helping both osx and unix.

Portable code is good code

Cross platform? (2)

Dancin_Santa (265275) | more than 13 years ago | (#207249)

Are there any developers out there really developing cross platform products that target Macs? In a similar vein, Mac enthusiasts like to focu on aesthetics, but cross-platform development needs to forego this aspect of useability in favor of LCD functionality.

It's certainly nice to see a common GUI API set available for another platform, but how useful is it really going to be?

Dancin Santa

What QT has that gtk doesn't (2)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#207250)

Font antialiasing, real table (spreadsheet) widget, internationalization, clean API, proper keyboard focus handling. If you don't think the above list is of dubious merit you are a slashdot moron too.

I didn't say that GTK was going away. It's all the GTK gnomes (such as yourself) that always have to post some moronic GTK plug in every QT thread that inspired the initial post.

Re:QT is the best gui toolkit out there (2)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#207251)

I have a problem with wxWindows approach to provision of cross platform portability. wxWindows wraps native widgets which sounds pretty exciting (you get the real stuff) but it has many drawbacks. The first problem with such toolkits is that you're limited to the lowest common denominator of widgets. If you're writing a cross platform motif/win32 app and want to use a windows widget that doesn't exist in motif you're out of luck with wxWin as a wrapper. This can obviously be resolved by having a hybrid toolkit that uses native widgets when it can and resorts to drawing widgets when it has to. I've never seen the hybrid approach done right though.

The other problem with wrapping is that it makes deriving new widgets based on those in your toolkit tricky and buggy. because your base widget has several implementations it's often problematic to derive a new one that is free of bugs and behaves the same way on all platforms of interest. This is the main concern I have with wrapper toolkits.

Re:What QT has that gtk doesn't (2)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#207252)

Language bindings? I don't care to be honest. QT binds to the one language I like and that's good enough for me. Can't do C++? Fine don't use it. Just stop posting irrelevant stuff in a QT thread.

I enjoy the fact that QT doesn't compromise the beauty of the API by trying to stretch across too many languages. Different programming languages require different design approaches. There is no good software design that is completely language neutral. GTK tries to be OO very hard but it's implemented in a procedural language. Hence it's ugly. GTK promissed to be cross-language and look at the sorry state of its C++ bindings. A cross platform toolkit that is also cross language can't be done without horrendous sacrifices to the readibility of the API. I'd rather have the pragmatic compromise that QT offers.

Re:What QT has that gtk doesn't (2)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#207253)

I elected a toolkit for my project roughly a year ago and I gave thought to gtk--. At the time it was sorely incomplete (half of the widgets weren't wrapped) and was buggy. There was at least several memory leaks that purify traced to gtk--. For all the gtk promotion and qt bashing I still have to encounter a single post that disproves my assertion that QT is the most advanced and complete cross platform library in existence.

Re:Uh (2)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#207254)

No it's not subjective. It's an easily quantified measurement. Let's battle it out on a feature count (let's skip the bug count(s) for now even though my bet is that looking into it would put QT even further ahead). Let's treat each platform supported as a single feature. Each complex widget is a feature. Each non-trivial toolkit element (eg. alpha channel, AA fonts) is a feature. Wanna have a go at it?

QT is the best gui toolkit out there (5)

MSBob (307239) | more than 13 years ago | (#207258)

And Slashdot is a lame forum. Actually it's slashdot's readership that's lame (99% of it anyway).

Qt is unparalleled if you're looking for developing cross platform applications. The class hierarchy is sensibly laid out, the widget are feature complete out of the box and simple to extend if you have to, it sports full internationalization including rtl based languages under all platforms, it is almost as fast as native toolkits, allows for a very good emulation of look and feel of various platforms, uses the signal slot mechanism, offers full proper keyboard focus handling, offers a choice of gui builders, offers clean unambigious API. QT is so astonishingly good it makes all other cross platform toolkits look bleak. I challenge all the morons here to name ONE toolkit that has all the features of QT. The rule is you're only allowed to mention existing features. Not 'planned features' or 'anticipated features' cuz there's a lot of them in GTK. But it ain't there yet.

Those who had to write anything bigger than a single dialog based utility come to appreciate its power. But there are not a lot of them hanging out on slashdot.

Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality (1)

Ayende Rahien (309542) | more than 13 years ago | (#207259)

95% of the server market doesn't need a GUI toolkit anyway.

Native Widget look/feel? Yeah, we got that. (2)

Spy Hunter (317220) | more than 13 years ago | (#207262)

Did you even look at the screenshots? QT/Mac is quite capable of looking and feeling exactly like any other Mac app.

Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (1)

bLitzfeuer (318604) | more than 13 years ago | (#207263)

Jeeesus Christ, every time there's news about Qt someone takes a GTK shit. Have you ever taken the time out to code in both API's. C++ as a language is bloated yes, but there are constructs there that go hand in hand with GUI programming.

Use them.

C is small simple and elegant... to a point, but if tell me that GTK/C coding is simpler than that Qt/C++ coding your ass is going to get struck by lightning. In GTK you have to remember what typecast macro to use just to pass a this pointer, (something implicit in C++), callbacks are not typesafe, (Qt signals and slots are), ohh and don't forget to namespace those methods with gtk_widget.

I'm just bitter... if GTK hackers can produce something as bad ass as Lopster [sourceforge.net] then GTK definitly has it's place, but if Stallman weenies are going to bash KDE/Qt then expect the same from the other side of the fence.

Re:bah -- qt the "de facto" standard? (1)

bLitzfeuer (318604) | more than 13 years ago | (#207264)

Surely you can appreciate that a LGPL-equivalent license is more reasonable for licenses than the GPL (and its close kin)?

Yes. It's more reasonable if you are a commercial entity with proprietary code but, IMHO, if that's the case then you should pay for the licensing. I would prefer to see Trolltech get monetary compensation to support R&D on a GPL'd package than to see company XYZ profit off the fruits of labor of many open source hackers without giving _one_line_ of code back to the community. This is a bad [gnu.org] thing and goes against why _free_ software was written in the first place.

Re:Oh GOODY! (1)

Gsus2 (319650) | more than 13 years ago | (#207265)

Yeah, but they can use Konquereor and KOffice. I don't think all Mac OS X users love using Microsoft software.

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though. (2)

janpod66 (323734) | more than 13 years ago | (#207266)

To some the prices might seem "high", but having worked with cross-platform products from other companies ($10,000.00, plus runtime license fees), I can tell you that Trolltech's prices are very reasonable.

An 1 year MSDN subscription is cheaper than a Qt developer license, and you get a lot more for your money in terms of tools, documentation, libraries, compilers, etc. What TrollTech is charging is more than many places spend on all their software and hardware combined per year.

Commercial cross-platform toolkits I have used in the past cost about as much as Qt, but they sure came with a lot more tools. In fact, as far as I am concerned, the only reason Qt is as nice as it is is because of the enormous contributions of the KDE project: without KDE, Qt would have been quickly forgotten.

Besides, the fact that some companies seem bent on charging a captive audience outrageous prices while floundering in the market doesn't mean that any cross-platform GUI library is worth that kind of money these days. 10 years ago, a C++ cross platform GUI library may have been a big deal, these days, they are a dime a dozen.

Nothing on Trolltech's pricing page indicates that you are limited to using the copy for one year. Rather, each copy is limited to one developer

Realistically, for commercial products, you need to get the annual maintenance: Microsoft and Apple keep rolling out new versions of their OS, and as a developer, you need to keep up.

If roughly $3000.00 USD for both *nix and WinXX is "too much" for your product's UI, I really have to question the business plan behind the product.

That's a lame argument. Commercial projects usually involve many developers, not just a single person. And if we are talking about small developers or consultants working on single projects, $2000-$4000/year is a lot of money.

Altogether, I don't think Qt is a good value for commercial projects. I also think it was a poor choice for the KDE project, and TrollTech has gotten a lot more out of KDE than they have given.

Possibly for somethings, not all though. (4)

TheAwfulTruth (325623) | more than 13 years ago | (#207272)

I've had to pass on qt for cross platform development because they steadfastly refuse to believe in the concept of shareware. You are allowed by the qt lisence to either give your software away for free or sell it (For any amount from 1 dollar to a million) by paying them a tremendously high yearly commercial fee. Their own page discounts the shareware market as too small to be bothered with. I think a quick look at winfiles or tucows will prove them wrong. Low cost software is a huge market, qt refuses to be a part of it. Personally I'm hoping they come around, it used to not even be available for free software. wxWindows is pretty good for windows/linux ports, but it's Mac port is way lagging. So in short. Free software? Yes, Large expensive packages? Yes. Cheap shareware type software? Not yet.

Re:Qt the de facto standard for cross platform ? (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | more than 13 years ago | (#207273)

Get real!! The de facto standard for cross-platform development is Java, and will remain so.

Um, no. The Java GUI is and will remain the cross-platform standard for a toy.

Qt, on the other hand, looks and feels like a real user interface.

purdy.... (1)

nilstar (412094) | more than 13 years ago | (#207274)

Looks pretty.

I just wonder, how much easier their task of porting was made because of the BSD background of OSX?

Also, does anyone know the best tool to develop for cross platform TroolTech QT gui on osx or on windows?

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (1)

warmiak (444024) | more than 13 years ago | (#207275)

"Part of why wxWindows is so nice is because it uses the native widgets of the platform it runs on. "

Frankly, I think GUI emulation route taken by Trolltech is a much better approach. First of all, using native widgets ( like java infamous AWT ) forces one to adopt the lowest common denominator of available functionality. You also end up with problems related to awkward OO design (inherited classes based on existing widgets are often hard to implement etc.)
Finally, there is a performance penalty related to API layering ( Qt code on given platform occurs no such penalty because it is executed in the same level as code for native widgets.)

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though. (1)

Tachys (445363) | more than 13 years ago | (#207278)

Yeah I have found shareware in the Windows world to be crap.

But in the Mac world the shareware is usually quite good. This is because mac users demand apps to be "Mac-like" and easy to use.

Re:You Linux-loving morons, here's some reality (1)

Infirmo (449121) | more than 13 years ago | (#207279)

Here is some reality for you, actually: Apple claims 9 percent of the personal computer OS market. That leaves 91 percent, not 95 percent for Windows, right? Wrong. That claim is based on very skewed data. All non-Apple personal computers are shipped with Windows. However, some unknown but clearly substantial number of those machines are then wiped to put other operating systems on. Further, a large portion of open source operating system users buy their computers piecemeal to be assembled personally, and those sales typically would not be included in market demographic research, because of the difficulty in tracking down and questioning the purchasers. There is simply no way that you can be certain what percentage of the market is actually using *nux. To be fair, MS does have the bulk of the market at this time, but that is rapidly changing, with MacOS gaining [cnet.com] fairly steadily on WIN, and *nux making leaps and bounds. I think that you will find that the personal computing landscape is going to be a very different place in a very short period of time, and you would do well to learn to use tools that will be worthwhile if your preferred platform tanks. Just my .02.

Re:Qt the de facto standard for cross platform ? (1)

cyberlync (450786) | more than 13 years ago | (#207280)

I am a full time Java developer and I am afraid I must disagree. Java is a greater server side language, but it is usless on the client side.

The java gui toolkits all suck. Swing is big, bloated and full of memory leaks. Awt has a smaller footprint but applications appierance changes from platform to platform. Until java solves this problem it will not be usefull as a cross-platform client for more then trivial applications.

Re:WxWindows is the de facto cross platform Standa (1)

kenshin-h (453971) | more than 13 years ago | (#207281)

The choices actually aren't all that clear, my friend, unless you consider "Windows 98", "Windows 2000", and "Linux" to be the only platforms worth crossing (fair enough).

Ignoring Tk (as we all should :), a supported version of Qt may be the first real cross-platform framework to successfully cross to the Mac. gtk+ and wxWindows aren't useful on the Mac yet. That will give some developers a powerful incentive to use Qt.

My money is ultimately on gtk+ due to inertia, GIMP and free-as-in-speech-dom, but I definitely prefer Qt's (and, for that matter, wxWindows's) API.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>