Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GTK-- vs. QT

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the technical-comparisons dept.

spirality asks: "The company I work for is getting ready to decide on a GUI Toolkit for our Computational Modeling Toolkit (CoMeT, www.cometsolutions.com). We would like C++ compatibility and ports to various Unices and Win32 platforms. Not supprisingly we've come up with two choices, GTK-- and QT. I've attempted to compare the two by doing alot of web surfing and searching, but I've come up with things that are consistently one or more years old. So, the question I pose is what are the (dis)advatages of GTK-- and QT, and why would I choose one of these toolkits over the other? Overall functionality, momentum for future growth, ease of use, licensing, and pretty much anything else is relevant to our decision." With QT now at version 3.0 and GTK now in the 1.2.x revisions, maybe it's time to give the two libraries some fair comparison and discuss the new features, advantages, and disadvantages of each?

6 of 325 comments (clear)

  1. Re:QT seems to rule by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait
    Great,

    So basically you don't know anything about GTK and you know next to nothing about QT, but here you are to offer the world your opinions for everyone to see. And, to top it off, you state that your opinion of GTK is based upong something you claim to have read in the past, but of course you offer no link or location for anyone to check your references. Great. Let me guess, I'll bet you're a rocket scientist for NASA?

    Then, to top it all off, some little 15 year old pissant with mod points gives you a plus one for your post which is in reality worthless. Perfect, just perfect.

  2. Re:licensing Qt == dangerous by fault0 · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    That's complete bullshit. Qt's commercial license has no clause like that. Only Qt's educational program has something like that, and no one is talking about that here.

    Go away, troll.

  3. Re:Qt Locks You In by Ozx · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    What RMS thinks doesn't mean jack shit...
    Fuck, he's the last person I would say "RMS himself" about, because everyone knows his views are about subjecting me to his will and calling it free...
    He doesn't even come close to defining what's "pure open sourced," so it's all moot.
    RMS thinks Qt is more free than X11 itself, I bet...

  4. Re:Some REAL points by 21mhz · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    QT is OO by design. GTK-- is OO by kludge.

    And the end result is different because..?

    > QT 3 gives you access to SQL-databases from its widgets.

    Why?
    To make it easier to build database-driven applications without having to twiddle between two libraries.

    If I understand correct, the other poster talks about database access from visible GUI elements. This is insane, by my book. Having an embeddable database viewer component is probably a good thing, but bolting it into library widgets is perpetrating unnecessary bloat. An object-oriented database layer can be helpful though, for you weaklings, hehe.

    Don't get me wrong, I love GTK and I hate KDE, but QT just feels nicer and works nicer, and as much as I'm loathe to, I have to admit that.

    Sorry, but you're a fucking troll.
    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  5. Re:Gtk+ on Win32 is NOT a one-man job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    yeah but gtk-- is a cheesy c++ wrapper anyways

  6. Re:licensing Qt == dangerous by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    you're the fawking troll. You should go away. Mughi was robbed of karma because of your dumbass reply.

    and oh yeah, he 0wned you in that reply to your comment. Loser.