Slashdot Mirror

just read this quickly

that answer your question.

http://www.staikos.net/~staikos/whyqt/

Maybe we should implement XUL in KHTML too?

KaXUL: presentation, code. As far as I know, it has not been worked on in the past 18 months, but the proof of concept is there, so it's certainly feasible.

And XUL is not Mozilla-specific but AFAIK its currently the only Free implementation.

You might be interested in KaXUL, a KDE version of XUL (and yes, it is a horrible name).

KDE (unlike GNOME) can be compiled without gcc/g++.

In fact its already been done on IBM's AIX operating system.

Click here for more info

Sunny Dubey

>> which is three times as large,
> GTk/GNOME is a hell of a lot less bloated than KDE/Qt.

Oh come on, please don't quote out of context. He was referring to the source code *the developer* needs to write:

>> It even scales better for small companies as they can't afford wasting salary on their GUI-person just to produce source code which is three times as large...

You're not seriously suggesting that you need more code when programming for KDE than for GNOME, are you? If you do please back that up with some numbers.

George Staikos knows both:
"Based on my experience porting GTK applications to Qt, the resulting code is typically 30%-60% smaller than the GTK equivalent (in terms of lines of code)."

I won't comment on the general bloat level of GNOME vs. KDE but I've yet to see any real comparison between the two that's beyond mere prejudice.

Qt is available for Windows Unix, MacOSX and embedded linux making it hard to reproduce as pure OSS with no commercial entanglements.
A Quick Cost analysis of Qt vs GTK.
(and lets not forget at Qt does much more than GTK does, so it's really a huge job recreating it)

Wicked! I get to catch no other than Bruce Perens himself posting a sizeable but subtle fallacy. I suppose that I get to really feel cool now, in a geeky sort of way. Anyway. Apologies, Bruce, for I strongly doubt you did it on purpose, but here it goes!

> One nice thing about GNOME is that a commercial license is not
> necessary to write and distribute a proprietary GNOME application.

*clears throat*

"One nice thing about paper and pencils is that a pricy PC is not necessary to design and write loads of code."

I mean this seriously, and this says nothing either for or against paper and pencils as opposed to computers.

Only, well, in both cases, the right tool will simply save enough time to make the cost well worth it.

And before some excited kid mods me down for daring to disagree with Bruce, let me tell you that if you've never used paper and pencil to design a piece of code you just thought up where no computer was at hand, you don't deserve your /. geek points.

Different tools work well in different circumstances, that's all. Deal.

And in this specific case, it is not unlikely there's a reason why one of the Linux desktop environments has more proprietary companies developping for it than the others.

Food for thought, I hope.

(Having karma to spare is a nifty thing, you get to speak plainly and maybe get people to think. That's way cool.)

Bali out.