Qt for Mac

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?"

Comments

story title

[Phexro]

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:QT is the best gui toolkit out there

[dimator]

I wish I had mod points.

The majority of the slashdot community has given nothing but ill-will and flames to all things Qt. It seems everytime there's a positive article about Qt, there's a dozen requisite GTK zealots that start whining: "bla bla bla license bla bla bla GPL bla bla bla I hate C++"

Now, there's complaints like this about how you can't use Qt for shareware. Are you fucking kidding me? Is everyone that desperate to complain about this product? Will trolltech ever catch a break here? I think not. (How's that saying go, about closed minds?)


---

Re:Possibly for somethings, not all though.

[dimator]

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.

Consider the source! Microsoft has made a habit of bundling software at a lower cost. Do you think MSDN is a better value because it was designed to be so, or because it's got Microsoft's billions behind it (meaning, it's OK if it loses money, whereas Trolltech has to make money on it's only real product). Secondly, I don't remember if MSDN tools run/build on *nix and now the Mac, so maybe you can get back to me on that.

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

What contributions are those? I don't recall any examples of KDE code (which would be GPL) getting back into the early Qt (which were not GPL). This is slashdot, you have to support your claims.

10 years ago, a C++ cross platform GUI library may have been a big deal, these days, they are a dime a dozen.

Please, complete the following, with toolkits that are as featureful and mature as Qt:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

Altogether, I don't think Qt is a good value for commercial projects.

http://www.trolltech.com/references/customers/. It seems AT&T, NASA, Ford, IBM, and Intel, among others, disagree with you.

I also think it was a poor choice for the KDE project

Is there an argument behind this, or just the claim? Can this argument even be defended? Do you know if the requirements of the KDE project could be met by anyone else?

(I'm sorry if the flamethrower was on full-blast, but one thing I can't stand is groundless, unsubstantiated claims by zealots.)


---

Importance of and list of x-plat frameworks

[goingware]

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.

Their forwarding link at http://www.theoffice.net/guitool 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 - 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, 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

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

[OCatenac]

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."

QT is the best gui toolkit out there

[MSBob]

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.

Possibly for somethings, not all though.

[TheAwfulTruth]

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.