Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Qt Released For OS X

Posted by timothy on from the merging-venn-diagrams dept.

AxsDeny writes: "It looks like Macslash is also reporting this, but Trolltech is now offering Qt for OS X. Long live cross platform development." Doesn't look like there's a Free version, but there is a non-commerical license called the "Qt Academic License," which "Allows schools and universities to acquire and use Qt for free in relevant courses."

7 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Another good link by wiredog · · Score: 5, Informative

    To a good article at Kuro5hin.

    --

    Best Slashdot Co
  2. Re:Carbonized? by mcfiddish · · Score: 3, Informative
    Cocoa is the "real deal" for OS X, and is based on C++.

    Actually Cocoa is based on Objective C, which is an object oriented language based on C, but is significantly different than C++. There's also Objective C++, but I don't know anything about it.

  3. Re:Aqua l'n'f or native Aqua implementation? by AxsDeny · · Score: 3, Informative

    yeah, if you read through it says that it uses the native Aqua interfaces as well as sets apps up to use the Aqua interface.

    --

    zork% mv *.asp /bin/darkroom
    283 files eaten by a grue
  4. Re:Yes, but you're breaking the law by pi_rules · · Score: 4, Informative
    That is absolutely not the case.


    You can write a GPL app and link it to non-free applications. What you cannot do is link to a GLPed library and release it with a non-free (well, non GPL) license. If the library is written under the LGPL you -can- link a non-GPL application to the LGPL library though.


    If your above stated take on the license was true it would be impossible to write a GPLed application for any OS which isn't GPLed from the ground up. You can write a GPL app for Win32 or Solaris, right? Last I checked their standard C library wasn't GPL.

  5. Pricing - ouch by TomatoMan · · Score: 3, Informative

    You know when you have to dig this deep into the site to find the pricing information, it's going to hurt when you get there.

    http://www.trolltech.com/purchase/qtpricing.html

    US$1550 for one professional license, US$1950 for one enterprise license?

    I believe all the people that say QT3 is the bees' knees, but yikes. Guess I won't be experiencing that coolness for myself.

    (Wistfully remembering the days when Think C was $99, and the early CodeWarriors were around $199)

    --
    -- http://frobnosticate.com
  6. Re:Time to move? by Dr.+Sp0ng · · Score: 4, Informative

    I've got a biggish Win32 program and wonder about moving it to Qt. How big an effort?

    Qt is quite a bit different from MFC, and I think porting would be more effort than simply rewriting it in Qt.

    Any performance hits / gotchas?

    Not really... don't pay any attention to the AC trolls who bitch and moan about moc (Qt's preprocessor)... it lets you do some really neat stuff that you simply can't do with normal callbacks. As for performance, I haven't noticed any speed hits using Qt as opposed to MFC.

    Any features that we'll lose?

    Nope. Anything that Qt doesn't support is EXTREMELY easy to add yourself... Qt is designed in such a way that subclassing a widget to add new features is a breeze, so you can make any widget do anything you want.

    Qt also provides tons of utility classes, which make it simple to do stuff like asynchronous socket/file i/o and so on. It rocks.

    Want to stop being dependent on MS before they collapse!

    Heheh. Good plan :)

  7. Re:Carbonized? by alannon · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is completely untrue. Objective C++ was included in MacOS 10.1. I'm using it as we speak. It allows you to mix Objective-C and C++ code freely in a single source code file. It works just as it should. It takes much longer to compile, though. Something about pre-processed headers, I think.