Now that QT is published under LGPL is there any reason at all to use wxwidgets?
Which one of these do you think is superior for developing crossplatform state-of-the-art multimedia production software?
Everyone knows that multimedia apps require a custom toolkit that looks and feels COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from anyotherprogram.
Take a look at Winamp, iTunes, Pro Tools, Garage Band, Premiere, Cinelerra, Renoise, CoolEdit, etc. etc. All of these highlysuccessfulandpopular programs have a distinct and unique user interface. This is what makes or breaks a program! If a program fails to stand out and DEMAND to be used, it will be ignored like every other lousy piece of low qualityshareware. A standard toolkit results in a boring application -- and this is fine for a word processor or mail client, but only because there is no creativity in those fields. When you base a MULTIMEDIA PRODUCTIONSUITE on a standard toolkit, you are effectively telling potential users that your program is not creative, thus implying that it is a poor match for their overwhelming creative talents. Therefore, a customized UI is the only choice.
The only thing better than a custom interface is a skinnable one. This way, each user can change the look andfeel, and even rearrange all of the widgets, thus unleashing MAXIMUM CREATIVE POTENTIAL.
>>11
nothing if i'm doing excel type things, like tables and sums etc. but its not the right interface for music
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 11:28
Qt still doesn't have some of wxWidgets' main features:
- Disgusting API
- Deeply rooted design flaws
- Wildly varying cross-platform behaviour
- Stuff breaking between minor point releases
- Missing and incorrect documentation
- PHP-quality example code
Why use either, when there is Fox? It's more consistent cross platform that wx and has a slightly less unintuitive event hooking mechanism than Qt -- and is significantly less code, too.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 17:17
>>19 The FOX toolkit is written in C++. Bindings are available for Python, Ruby and Eiffel.
no bindings for decent languages. looks like i'll have to stick with qt.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 18:27
>>1 >>16
A few months ago, I wrote a small program for my employer with WX. It simply loaded when the install CD for our software was inserted, and provided a graphical menu for the different installation options, and then delegated the real work to the actual install program.
It was a a bit of an adventure, reading through the WX documentation, trying to figure out what I wanted to do. I had to implement some custom classes that derive from the ones WX provides just to get a transparent text control.
Now, it wasn't completely terrible, because it was such a small program, but I think that if I had to maintain anything larger written with WX I'd go insane. Now that Qt will be under the LGPL, I'll seriously consider using it in the future.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 19:09
The thing about Qt is that it is shit.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 19:37
The Windows API is the best! I'm not kidding except for the NULL, NULL, NULL part either!
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 19:49
In all honesty, the best cross-platform widget toolkit I've found is SWT. And this is after checking out Qt, GTK, and wx.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 20:03
>>24
Yeah, it's all great until you force your users to wait to download Java. And you have to use Java to use it... wait, why is it so great again?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-05 20:19
>>24
forcing people to use java is almost as bad as forcing people to use sepples.
>>27
I would agree with this, except for the nobody actually using fltk part. And the being written in Sepples part. And the looking like ground-up ass part.
Actually, let me start again. >>27
Fltk sucks dick like every other "let's make another stupid incompatible toolkit".
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-06 6:16
Tk! Tk! Tk is the STANDARD!!!
Is it too much to ask for these days to have a decent C interface for your GUI toolkit? Every language out there in practical use can call C libraries, but I'm not sure these C++ faggots even understand the concept.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-06 12:41
How about Qt vs. GTK? Looking at some GTK code I found it to be quite intriguing.
>>31
Gtk is total ass to code for in straight-up C; in terms of usage in its "native" language Gtk really sucks. Qt on the other hand is pretty nice (as far as C++ goes, as it's a really stupid lanugage) - especially when compared to Gtk-- which is about equivalent to being throatfucked by a dolphin.
However, the Ruby and Python Gtk wrappers are both pretty decent, whereas the Qt wrappers are full of ugly. (What the fuck is with all that SIGNAL() and SLOT() shit?)
PyGtk is also much better than that Tkinter garbage that comes with Python; I don't know why that legacy Tcl-requiring crap is still in the standard lib (oh right, because Guido is a faggot)
>>34
That's your own fault for using the default theme.
Although I really wonder why they don't make a less shitty default theme.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-06 13:31
>>35 That's your own fault for using the default theme.
what
I don't know or care what a `theme' means in this context. I just know that that all GTK programs I've ever used on any platform outside of Gnome have looked and acted like teenagers with Assberger's syndrome. If that somehow manages to be `my fault', it only reinforces my impression.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-06 13:48
>>35
all the themes do that.
well except for the default theme on solaris, but i haven't seen that theme anywhere else and haven't cared enough to figure out how to make other themes have reasonably sized buttons because i usually use kde instead. and that's usually just to run konsole, amarok, and firefox (which uses its own themes for everything, so it doesn't suffer from the usual gtk ugliness).
>>37,36
Sounds like your systems are just plain fucked up. I have used Gtk apps on plenty non-Gnome systems and they act fine.
>>37 in your case it might be that KDE is doing retarded shit. I know it does a fair amount of fuckery to Gtk themes by default that just ends up making them look like hell. Try turning that bogus setting off for starters.
Personally I find Qt apps to look purely offensive and not follow any interface standards, whereas Gtk is usually somewhat sane by comparison. Although most of my apps are console based and I don't usually use any sort of desktop environment, just straight x11.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-06 14:02
>>38 Sounds like your systems are just plain fucked up. I have used Gtk apps on plenty non-Gnome systems and they act fine.
Say... Have you ever used, like, a non X11-based system?
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-06 14:06
>>38 I have used Gtk apps on plenty non-Gnome systems and they act fine.
✔ Looks like shit on Windows
✔ Looks like shit on Mac OS
✔ Looks like shit in KDE
Saying that GTK is ugly on Windows might have been true five years ago. Nowadays GTK has adapted a pretty much native look, and I can't really see anything wrong with it.
Look at this screenshot of Comix[1], for example. Looks like any other Windows application you might come across.
>>47
Why does the font rendering look like total shit?
Why doesn't it use the standard Windows-style checkboxes and radio buttons?
Why do the menubar and toolbar have fucktardedly thick bevels?
Why does the scrollbar gutter not have the same slightly stippled look as every fucking Windows app?
Why are the inactive tabs in the dialogs a different color?
Why does it use nonstandard icons?
And more specifically regarding that app, why does it list Unix style file permissions and owner, which are completely goddamn meaningless on Windows?
Why are the close buttons translated but nothing else is? If this is supposed to be some kind of sample screenshot, at least make it all one language.
That's a really lousy example image you've got there.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-07 10:50
>>48 And more specifically regarding that app, why does it list Unix style file permissions and owner, which are completely goddamn meaningless on Windows?
Probably because it is developed for UNIX platforms and just happens to work on Windows? I can see where you are coming from with some of your points, but as I said before, it looks that `shitty' as people make it out.
>>56
The fuck are you on about? I just said that >>47's screenshot sucked and the Windows Gtk looks like shit. I think that's something we can all agree on here.
>>60
I think that I can agree on your mother sucking on my penis. But that's about it.
Name:
Anonymous2009-02-07 15:41
GTK is a lot closer to looking like a native program nowadays, but it still looks like shit in places (menus and toolbars, mostly).
Somewhat more annoying is how GTK applications always get the OK/Apply/Cancel buttons in the wrong order on Windows. How can you get one of the most basic features so completely WRONG‽That was a rhetorical question
The command line is all the interface anyone would naturally want. If you really need a beginner's interface, I suggest curses. GUIs are only moderately appropriate in mobile interfaces.
Use platform specific toolkits. Ditch the ``cross-platform'' shite, especially for UIs. Each OS has a different style and/or runs on different form factors. It's better to use MFC (or another win32 wrapper for whatever language) on Windows and Cocoa on OS X.
>>75
That'd be great if all you write are toy programs.