GUI Toolkits for the X Window System

TeachingMachines writes "Leslie Polzer has written a nice summary of the current state of GUI Toolkits for the X Windows System (article title of the same name). Those of you who are planning to spend hours and hours scouring the Internet for a mature cross-platform GUI toolkit may save some time and trouble by reading this summary. Leslie's review covers the pros and cons of using GTK+, Trolltech QT, FLTK, wxWindows, and the FOX Toolkit."

Comments

One thing missed

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

The one thing I don't like about toolkits (not mentioned in her list of cons) is that if you distribute the source code, whoever is compiling needs to have the toolkit.

I've tried to compile and install programs before and spent a lot of time trying to track down the toolkit libraries.

This is not a good reason to abondon using toolkits, but it is one negative aspect to take into consideration.

Re:One thing missed

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

No, I think this is different than most libraries. In general, commonly used libraries are already in the proper directory, ready to be used. But windowing toolkits aren't generally installed by default. Specifically, if you are compiling code that uses one of the more obscure windowing toolkits, you have very little chance of already having the proper libraries in place. In which case you will have to go hunt them down.

Re:One thing missed

[Sean Starkey]

This is a strange comment. It is like saying, "The one thing I don't like about C++ is that if you distribute the source code, whoever is compiling needs to have the compiler."

Of course you need the toolkit library if source code uses it.

Re:One thing missed

[Telex4]

One way to avoid this problem of dependencies, and also to really boost the useability of your app, is to try hard to separate the GUI from the "guts" of the application, so it is reasonably easy to write multiple UIs (GUI or CLI) for the same application. Then you, or others, can come and develop new UIs for themselves. For example, when I started developing QuickRip, I began with a (Py)Qt interface. Someone requested a CLI interface, so I made the separation, and gave QuickRip two interfaces. Now some (Py)Gtk developers are adding a Gtk interface, because they don't want to use Qt. Lovely.

Of course this approach is only usually worth it when most of the hard work is done in the guts, and when the UI itself isn't that much work to redo in a different toolkit. Nor does it work when you need a feature than is only available in a specific toolkit. But in many instances, it works fine.

So often there's no need to choose between toolkits... just choose them all! :)

When wxWindows gets decent support for toolkits other than Gtk+, it will make this even more trivial.

Re:One thing missed

[mark_lybarger]

normally you know that going into the effort. and i would guess that there's typically an easy way to get those things installed properly (apt-get, install shield, emerge, rpm, etc, etc). yes, if you're developing a kde/qt app, or a gtk+ app or a wxWindows app your user base will be slightly diminished. if someone wants the app, they'll get it. hell, the postgresql has a database management utility that's based on the wxWindows toolkit and has a nice and easy windows installer.

X Programming In C

[dodell]

It still takes a really long time to find documentation on writing stuff for X in the first place. For instance, I was getting into creating a window manager at one point and found it extremely difficult to find documents about how to acutally program for X. Widget toolkits are not enough in some cases. Some books about low-level X programming are at:

http://www.pconline.com/~erc/xwind2nd.htm
http: //www.pconline.com/~erc/advxwnd.htm

Unfortunately, I've lost the URLs for the X API docs and containing really good example documentation on X Windows programming in C. If anybody has these URLs, I'd appreciate it, since it took me several days of searching to dig them up and I can't find them anymore (harddrive crashes suck).

Re:X Programming In C

[Anonymous Coward]

http://tronche.com/gui/x

has a good X api reference

Re:X Programming In C

[thames]

I have the following links (I'm trying to write a window manager myself... :-)
I hope these are the ones you lost:

http://www.xfree86.org//4.3.0/manindex3.html
ht tp://tronche.com/gui/x/icccm/
http://tronche.com/ gui/x/xlib/
http://x.holovko.ru/Xlib/contents.htm l

Hope someone finds them usefull...
Creating a window manager, is actually quiet fun, as long as you have others code to look at...

Re:X Programming In C

[AJWM]

the rest are fluff, imnsho.

Hardly. If you're doing Xlib programming (Vol 1), then you'll also want Vol 2 (Xlib Reference Manual). Granted, Vol 3 (X Users Guide) probably won't tell X programmers much they don't know, and if you're using one of the non- Xt-derived toolkits (GTK, Qt, etc) then the later volumes (4 & 5, Xt Programming and Reference Manuals respectively, and 6, Motif) aren't necessary -- unless you ever hope to figure out how some of the older code out there works.

Nobody uses XView (Vol 7) any more (do they?) and the X Window SysAdmin's Guide (Vol 8) is useful only to sysadmins of large X-based thin client installations (such as Largo City FL, perhaps?), but I wouldn't exactly call them "fluff".

(And yeah, I've got the whole set, including both "regular" and "Motif" editions of some, plus the R6 supplement, and the "Nutshell" volume -- which is actually pretty handy as a desk reference over the thicker volumes. But then I've been doing X Windows programming since late X10 days circa 1987.)

Why would you want to use anything but Swing?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's far more easily cross platform than the competitors. It's a rich GUI toolkit, not limited by least-common-denominator weirdnesses, and backed by a world class rendering layer (java 2D).

Todays Java is not at all what old Java was. It's far faster, and only getting faster with each release, than in the past, far more reliable, far more complete, etc.

Re:Why would you want to use anything but Swing?

[truth_revealed]

Why a native C/C++ GUI toolkit?

- can distribute a statically linked 2 meg executable - quick to install
- typically only 2 megs of resident RAM used by running program
- virtually zero startup time
- much more responsive GUI
- still runs well on hardware more than 4 years old

Why not Swing?

- don't want the 40 meg downloadable JRE footprint
- don't want Java version hell for your users/customers
- don't want the 40 Meg of resident RAM required by the smallest running Swing program
- requires the latest hardware for decent speed.

This Guy is heavily biased against QT

[Anonymous Coward]

This made the article useless. I wonder if he has ever tried QT. It just works! No futzing around. He is biased because you have to pay for the windows port.

-1 Troll(tech)

[CausticWindow]

This article reads like a Qt flamefest.

I don't see how Qt's "business like homepage" should have anything to do with how good a toolkit Qt is. The "free for linux not for w32" is of course a valid point, but it's the only one.

Re:-1 Troll(tech)

[LizardKing]

This article reads like a Qt flamefest.

Certainly does. He also dislikes C, yet he programs using GTK+. I guess he must be a fan of gtkmm. Frankly, I get the impression that the articles author is a little bit inexperienced, and would be better off learning Java and its Swing API. That will give him a decent grounding in MVC architecture, while keeping him otherwise occupied so that he doesn't write any more articles :)

Chris

Re:-1 Troll(tech)

[Des Herriott]

Yep, the author obviously has some kind of beef with Qt.

"Commercial" and "proprietary" are not at all the same thing, but the author believes you need to pay to sell Qt applications. Wrong - you are permitted to sell GPL-licenced software.

The fact that the toolkit is large and takes a long time to compile (a few hours on a moderate-spec PC) is irrelevant. You don't need to recompile your toolkit every day, and you get binary Qt packages with most Linux distributions anyway.

"Business-oriented main website" is a non-argument, as you say.

"Main branch depending on one company" is a non-argument, since even if Trolltech folded tomorrow, a GPL-licenced Qt can be picked up by volunteers, just like any other free toolkit.

The namespace concern is the only minus point with any merit - on the other hand, I don't see Gtk+ using namespaces either, and that wasn't mentioned as a minus point, was it? (Yes, I know Gtk+ is written in C - but that doesn't alter the fact that it too does not use namespaces)

This article wasn't a summary, it was a soapbox rant.

Re:-1 Troll(tech)

[Xerithane]

I don't see how Qt's "business like homepage" should have anything to do with how good a toolkit Qt is.

Considering that Trolltech is a business, I think it does reflect the quality of Qt. If Trolltech was a business, and their website looked like half the other OSS projects out there, nobody would take them seriously.

The "free for linux not for w32" is of course a valid point, but it's the only one.

That isn't even a valid point. Qt 2.3 for Win32, free.

Re:-1 Troll(tech)

[Pr0xY]

also, the author misses a another buig point. I spoke to trolltech support about having to release code under GPL using the free liscense, and they agreed to only have it apply to code that actually included QT code.

For example, I have written an emulator which I havent open sourced yet, and 95% of the code is ANSI C++. Why should i need to open source the whole thing? I found them very accomidating in the fact that I would only have to open source the the parts that actually used the QT classes.

All in all QT is the best object oriented toolkit out there, they are a very professional company and a previsouly noted this should be a moot point when anylizing the toolkit itself.

proxy

writing graphics software

[dollargonzo]

one of the biggest problems in writing a RAD graphics software is that lots of users want it to interface with a lot of different toolkits, such as motif, qt, gtk, tk, xt, etc. obviously, it would be nice if they all just chose one, but that will not happen anytime soon. now, we[the company in mind] are thinking of writing our own low level toolkit (since the software currently doesn't have its own widgets). this is basically how new toolkits come into existence and the user base is forced to choose at yet another fork in the road. *sigh*

Exactly

[Anonymous Coward]

I need to write GUI code that works on all Linux, all HP-UX, all SUN Solaris, all SGI platforms without requiring more than a simple "make".

Our customers would not like it if I told them to find and install version 1.2 of GTK and stuff like that, because in all honestly, on any platform other than Linux most of these toolkit libraries have no simple install mechanism and tend to be buggy.

So Xlib all the way... Simple and it runs on even a 10 year old version of Linux.

Re:Exactly

[RevAaron]

I too need to write GUI apps that just work on a number of platforms- Mac OS X, Mac OS Classic, Windows, Linux, IRIX and Solaris, and have it work with a simple ./configure; make.

Luckily, I don't have to use Xlib, although the display system for X11 probably uses Xlib. I use Squeak Smalltalk, and can distribute my application with the virtual machine for the specific platform, or as Unix source for somebody to compile if they're on a more obscure platform. This can be easily included with my tarball- no need to download stuff seperately. It is also a small addition to my own code, so it's not like you're adding a big download or hassle.

GTK+, Qt and the desktop libraries that accompany them, on the otherhand, *are* a big hassle. Most Linux systems have a version (or two!) of one or both of those libraries, but often enough when deploying, you still have to have them install the version you wrote your app against- and you better believe it's not quick and easy!

Why the Qt bashing?

[arvindn]

Look at the last paragraph of the article:

I personally think Qt is made irrelevant by both of the others because they are not missing anything Qt offers. The tools that come with Qt may not be bundled with them, but comparable tools do exist and can be used free of charge, and most often as Free Software. Qt's biggest weaknesses are its relic called "MOC" and its business orientation. Yes, it's GPL, but not for MS Windows, so you're not really free. FOX and (especially) wxWindows offer similarly advanced sets of widgets and techniques, so you might as well throw Qt away. In terms of portability, it's the same, and wxWindows even adds OS/2 portability. Believe me, I don't want to be unfair to Trolltech or upset dedicated Qt developers. I tried to be objective, and that's my objective conclusion. Maybe we can discuss this point in the comments for this article.

There is a disturbing trend of recent articles that engage in Qt/KDE bashing. Can't help wondering whether it is really a coincidence or not. For instance, here's another freshmeat editorial from a few months back.

wxwindows - wxpython

[nuggz]

Cross platform, native widgets.

Combined with python it is very simple and easy.
I wouldn't make commercial apps, but for small development, it's my choice.

Documentation

[lunenburg]

For me, it came down to documentation. I have a moderately complicated GUI Perl app (Perl because it was the language I was most familiar with). I looked into various toolkits, like wxPerl, GTK/Perl, QT/Perl, but ended up using good ol' reliable Perl/Tk.

The big advantage with picking up Perl/Tk was that the O'Reilly books were extremely informative - good examples on each widget, how they interoperate, how to use them, and larger program examples. The documentation for the other toolkits I considered basically consisted of "look at the arguments this C++ function takes, and use it," which didn't make for an easy time picking things up (wxPerl was the worst in that regard). While an experienced C++ programmer might not have a hard time with that, it was way over my head.

As a result, though, I have a decent app that runs on X11 and Win32. With the great PAR archiver, I can even package the app up in a nice bundle.

Good times.

Re:Documentation

[DavidNWelton]

Many have enjoyed how easy Tk is to use and how x-platform (and
x-language) compatible it is, much easier and more stable than other
toolkits mentioned.

A common complaint has been the default Motif look and feel on unix
(this is easy to change, but many don't bother changing the
defaults). This is about to change. Tk 8.5, currently in development,
is going to represent a major revamp of Tk. Basic things like updated
default look and feel as well as enhancing the core widget base (there
are 100s of widgets for Tk, but only 15 in the "core").

This is also meant to target all Tk users (not just Tcl users). There
are lots of widgets out there only available to Tcl/Tk users that
could be made available to Perl/Python/Ruby/R/Lua/etc if a better
framework were used so widget authors understood the basics of having
their widgets used by multiple languages. Numerous other enhancements
are planned, all to be done on a tight schedule (we don't like waiting
for software). You can see the a wiki for this work being built at
http://tcl.projectforum.com/tk/

Missed the best

[norwoodites]

He missed the best: GNUStep.
GNUStep uses Objective-C and is a clone of the OpenStep API's and is pretty stable.
To write a simple Application you do not have to write that much code any more.

Re:Missed the best

[roard]

I agree, it's quite shameful that he didn't even dared to mention it.

GNUstep is a true object oriented framework, running on Linux and other Unices, and there is even a port for Windows in early stage. It's an OpenStep implementation, as MacOS X's Cocoa, thus you could port GNUstep applications on MacOS X and MacOS X application on GNUstep very easily. GNUstep also has great RAD tools like Gorm, modeled after NeXT's InterfaceBuilder.

GNUstep supports distributed objects out of the box, has a great database library (you just deal with objects, define a link between thoses objects and your database's model, and hop, no need to SQL), support scripting very easily, uses the PostScript imaging model (no need to maintain two versions of your code for display and printing), etc.

A good example of a GNUstep application compiling both on MacOSX and GNUstep is GNUMail, available on http://www.collaboration-world.com/gnumail ...

I urge people to check http://www.gnustep.org website :-)

You could find informations and articles about GNUstep on http://www.roard.com/docs , there is also the gnustep's wiki (http://wiki.gnustep.org), a good GNUstep's site for news on http://www.gnustep.us and a great guide for installing GNUstep (http://gnustep.made-it.com)

It's really a shame that so few people contribute to this great project...

Re:Missed the best

[roard]

I should also add that it will be *really* great if more people sign the petition to ask Sun to release the LighHouse Design applications ! the petition is here : http://www.petitiononline.com/laafs/petition.html Sun doesn't use thoses software at all, yet some are really great (for example, Quantrix, a multidimensionnal spreadshit, or VarioBuilder, a tool to create small database-based applications like MSAccess).

If Sun choose to release some of theses apps, it would be possible to port them on GNUstep and MacOSX !

So please, sign the petition !

Re:Missed the best

[UnuMondo]

I agree. I came across GNUstep two months ago and was amazed by its incredibly simple API. I quickly made my first app, Charmap, a character map which uses Unicode.org's standards files to provide a wealth of information about any character. This was easy and fast because GNUstep provided solid Unicode/UTF-8 support from the start. While for example GTK was a pain to use until 2.0 with regards to non-Latin scripts, GNUstep at the same time had one of the most advanced string classes.

Not only is GNUstep concise and simple, but because Apple's Cocoa is also an implementation of the OPENSTEP standard, one can use Cocoa docs in GNUstep programming. This allows the programmer to tap into abundant resources online and in print.

If you're interested in what's going on in the GNUstep world, my favourite resource is www.gnustep.us, which lists the latest news and updates. I hope I don't sound like a karma whore, I'm just super-enthused about a fantastic API that doesn't get the attention it deserves.

FLTK licensing is *incorrect*

[Junks Jerzey]

The author claims it is not free software. The FLTK site claims otherwise:

FLTK comes with complete free source code. FLTK is available under the terms of the GNU Library General Public License.

We have ammended the LGPL to explicitly allow static linking of FLTK (or any modified version of FLTK) to your software. The LGPL is not clear on this and we definately want to allow it.

Program in what you like

[ChiefArcher]

Program in what you like...
Although programming in QT won't get it included into gnome and programming in GTK won't get it included in KDE.

A lot of apps people develop never see the light of day... I've programmed hundreds of little apps for the various companies I've worked for.. I programmed in what I liked.. and what I was used to...

Just because you need to create a little app with a textbox and a button doesn't mean you need to include the HEAVY libraries of gtk/qt/gnome/kde.

Just my thought.

ChiefArcher

Re:what no TK?

[DavidNWelton]

1) Tk is very fast to develop with. You can get good gui's out quickly.

2) So now you want to do a complex, involved gui? You can do that too. Don't like stuff that was thrown together quickly by people who don't know anything about GUI design fool you. It's hard work, and it takes a different set of skills. Just because Tk made GUI programming available to just about everyone, don't judge it on the results of everyone trying to do GUI's!

3) Tk has been around for a while, is well tested, well known, and well built. It is the toolkit of choice for Tcl, Python, and lots of other languages.

4) Of course, it is open source, and lots of people use it and know it. If you want to improve it, you can.

What, no {Mo,Less}tif?

[AJWM]

Yeah, I RTFA and know he disses them with "too hard, too much like Xlib" (actually they're built on Xt, which is built on top of Xlib).

But anybody who thinks Xt is "too hard" probably is out of their depth programming GUIs anyway. (Now, if you think it's ugly, that's a whole 'nother discussion...) And nothing else gives you that level of flexibility and control. (Well, nothing else sane -- if you want to code direct to the X protocol, go right ahead...)

Missed the most promising one: Java/SWT

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe this author missed the one toolkit that's been making so much wave in the last year, namely Java/SWT.

It's the toolkit used to create the Eclipse IDE from IBM, similar in approach to wxWindows...i.e. renders using native widgets on each platfrom (win32 APIs on Windows, GTK+ 2.0 on Linux, Aqua on Mac OS X), but with the same common API on all platforms.

Did I mention coding in Java is much easier than fighting with ancient macros in C or C++?

Plus, SWT apps start up real fast and consume much less resources than the infamous default Java SWING toolkit. Just look at the difference in responsiveness between Eclipse and NetBeans (I call it the Molasses IDE in tribute to its speed).

SWT is the future of Java GUI and because it renders with native widgets it's the way to go for the future.

Did I mention it's open-source and 100% free on all platforms, including windows (unlike Qt).

Plus...you get access to all the standard Java libs (db access, xml processing, web services, threasing, etc...)

Re:Missed the most promising one: Java/SWT

[javatips]

The fact that Netbean is very slow is not due to Swing.

Just look at JBuilder, it load as fast and is as responseive as Eclipse. JBuilder is using Swing.

You should never compare two different toolkit by just comparing just one application for each toolkit.

Also SWT as some portability problems. They get addressed pretty fast, but is not as portable as Swing is.

Making Money == Evil?

[avdi]

The article's biggest strike against Qt is "Very business-oriented main Web site". What the hell is that about? "I'm shocked, shocked! to find marketing going on in this business!". Clue to the author: Qt is made by a company called Trolltech. Companies exist to make money for their employees and shareholders. One of the ways they do that is by (gasp) marketing themselves on the web. That particular company has gone to great lengths to accomodate free software developers; but they still have to make money somehow. If you object to their business model, just say so. But objecting to the fact that their corporate website is "very business oriented" is like objecting to the fact that Slashdot is "very geek oriented".

Re:Making Money == Evil?

[WNight]

What's is it with all of the "Poor Trolltech" sentiment in this thread? If their GUI library isn't available on Windows without paying money for a development kit and a license it's not as useful as free cross-platform libraries.

If I write some neat program for myself and friends in Linux, it'd be nice to do it with a GUI library that'd let me, with a minimum of porting hassles, release it for friends in Windows as well. Not worth the $1500 dev kit, but still handy.

Or perhaps if I was starting as a shareware developer. $1500 isn't much when the money starts coming in, but it's a lot up front.

Being that portability to Windows is a handy thing, I think the issue of QT being a business and charging for that ability is directly on topic.

Yes, we know, for the trillionth time, that the job of a company is to make money, yada, yada, yada... That doesn't mean that our job is to supply a company with money.

Re:Making Money == Evil?

[denshi]

Hi.

Qt was around years before KDE. And Trolltech was a smaller, but still successful, company back then. I was programming Qt back in 1997? 98? It was rock-solid even then. GTK+, which, I might add, was being developed for political reasons, was kind of a permanent, bloody migrane to work in. And let's focus in on the reasons again. Qt was there. Then KDE happened. Then Miguel and co pitched a fit that this well-designed app was becoming a new Linux standard, and screamed bloody hell that it was based on a non-GPLed toolkit. Qt was free on Linux, but That Wasn't Good Enough. They borrowed the toolkit from GIMP, called GTK internally, renamed it as GTK+, decided to keep it in C, and started work on it and GNOME in order to preserve GPL sanctity on the Linux desktop. Scroll forward two years. You find that KDE has continued lightyears ahead of GNOME, and that in response to the GNOMEitistas, Trolltech has first created the QPL, which the OSI rated as open-source, but since That Wasn't Good Enough, Trolltech then released Qt under the GPL, but somehow that STILL Wasn't Good Enough for the GNOMEitistas, and so the silly war continued...

I don't know if you've been around that long. But there's the background on the FUD. There's a bit of a tendency in the slashdot crowd to just accept the years old FUD and not think about it too much.

"The community at large" I guess kind of means whatever you want it to mean. If you mean "GUI developers", then, no, C is not the standard, C++ has been the standard for years. Passing C++ references and calling object methods is the way most GUI programming is done, not writing preprocessor macros to magically objectify sickeninly complex C structs and chasing function pointers around the app. If you mean, "open source programmers", then no, C is still not the standard, C++ and Java compete with all the scripting toolkits out there now. If you mean "slashdot bigots with poor grasp of history", then yes, you could say that C is the standard.

QT != evil

[scharkalvin]

"What you get when you download Qt 2/3 is the free X11 version ("Qt Free Edition") which enables you to write non-commercial applications for The X Window System. When you want to create commercial, proprietary, or non-free software, or want to compile your program for Windows or embedded systems, you'll have to pay for the Qt Professional or Enterprise version (both are quite expensive). Qt tried to specify this in their own license (the "QPL") because they felt the GPL could cause them some problems (please see freshmeat article #180 for more information). From Qt 2.2 and upwards, you can now freely choose between the QPL and GPL before building the libraries. That's the whole story; if you feel I missed an important point, feel free to correct me (Qt flames go straight to /dev/null, though). You can read more about Trolltech's licensing issues in freshmeat articles #170, #172, and the one mentioned above."

The author probably doesn't understand the GPL. All of the other tool kits distributed under the GPL can be used in commerical applications and SO CAN THE GPL'ed version of QT. You just have to accept the terms of the GPL to do so, IE: your application must be open sourced! In this sense QT has an avantage! If you buy their commerical license you may then close source your application. What they have done is allow you to pay extra to by-pass the GPL. How is this an evil thing? The other kits do NOT give you a choice, it's the GPL or nothing! Choice is good. QED.
QT != evil.

Re:what no TK?

[lunenburg]

Have you ever tried to program using the perl bindings? I have done it in the past and was extremely annoyed by the fact that it is a non-stop moving target. It also broke quite often. I ended up abandoning the entire stuff.

Yup, sure have. I've been working with this app for going on three years, producing useful releases every 4-5 months or so, and haven't run across a "moving target" in Perl/Tk. Aside from bugfixes, I haven't had to go back and change any of my code or work around any brokenness in new Perl/Tk releases.

Granted, my app doesn't tax the outer limits of the Tk bindings, but for what I do, I've found Perl/Tk to be a stable and adequate cross-platform toolkit.

Agreed. And that's not all... (rant)

[Balinares]

I have to agree. Sounds like someone with an axe to pick and yet trying to come across as an "oh look at me I'm knowledgeable and unbiased!" kind of writer. Feh.

So, let's see.

First of all, isn't it funny how the author omits to mention how a clean and thoroughly engineered class hierarchy can help you design more modular software that will be much easier to maintain and refactor? Or do people really think that the KDE project has been improving at the pace it has by mere luck?

> Very business-oriented main Web site

That's a problem how? Do you really MIND that the site provides info for people other than geeks, along with, you know, a completely up to date documentation for each version?

> Main branch depending on one company

This is either pure ignorance or a lie. Typical underhanded FUD. The main branch is GPL'ed, and the KDE Foundation was established to keep the main branch GPL'ed no matter what happens to Trolltech.
http://www.kde.org/whatiskde/kdefreeqt foundation.p hp

> Commercial developers and people wanting portability have to pay

Commercial developpers *ARE* allowed to sell GPL apps, dammit. THIS is the way of Free Software business.
And Qt 2 is available under for GPL on all the main platforms. That's for portability. Only Qt 3 for Windows requires a commercial license (this wasn't always the case, but according to interviews I read some Windows developpers would routinely use the GPL version in closed source apps, so Trolltech had to discontinue the GPL license on Windows. Thank you, guys. Thank you so much.)

> Huge sources and binaries, library itself takes ages to compile

That's C++ for you, dude. Install a binary package next time.
Additionally, and just because I'm pissed and am most willing to nitpick the bullshit out of existence, 1) Qt ships will ALL the major distribs, and a majority of minor ones -- no need to recompile it, and 2) You don't need to recompile it either for use with older software, as the API is backwards compatible -- which is not the case of all the APIs out there, which he blissfully omitted.

> Objects not referred by namespace but simple literal prefix "Q"

And that's a problem how?

> Dominant Microsoft Windows look

This is either pure ignorance or a lie. I won't even enumerate the number of looks Qt comes with *natively*.

In fact, this is so close to the usual Qt FUD you can hear from certain people that I strongly suspect that the whole purpose of the article was a clumsy attempt at slowing the growing popularity of Qt. Well, sorry, but such retarded FUD won't last three minutes on Slashdot. We may be a bunch of bickering nerds at times, but we know our shit.

If you don't like Qt and are concerned about its growing supremacy, which is your absolute right, then contribute to competing projects to help them improve. Trying to smear shit on competitors will only make your side look desperate. Is this what you want?

Rant other. Let the moderation begin, I have karma to burn.

My 2 cents

[truth_revealed]

Qt:
- most polished GUI of the bunch, great documentation, great portability, looks great.
- typesafe callbacks
- smallest learning curve - very easy to use.
- downside: price, MOC preprocessor, very long compiles.
- recommendation: if you have the money - go buy it.

FLTK:
- perhaps the fastest and has the smallest memory footprint of the bunch.
- small size comes with a price - the look and feel is noticably "off" and often you get non-standard widget behavior.
- void* based event callbacks
- fastest compiles

FOX:
- programs look quite professional
- non typesafe events void* pointers that are a royal pain in the butt to use, and are very poorly documented.
- lack of virtual functions for most GUI classes - must use table dispatch for each new class to override behavior.
- only supports UNIX (X11) and Windows
- only has Windows 2000 look on any platform, but looks quite good nonetheless with minimal flicker
- small user base
- no CVS access - maintained by one individual

WxWindows:
- supports the most platforms, has native look.
- large community of support
- many interpreted language bindings
- different behavior on different platforms
- widgets flicker like crazy
- not very stable in my experience

Totally missed the point of Qt

[frostfreek]

Qt has THE BEST object-oriented design that I have seen, by far. The widget hierarchy, methods, etc... have a very clean and consistent implementation. Also, the documentation is fantastic! It is always current wrt. the library.

- The ease of code integration into Designer by OO derivation is fantastic.
- The speed at which GUI apps can be developed, using TT's Designer is great!
- The qmake program, while not as capable as automake etc..., is still simple and easy to use. Plus, it takes care of his whining about extra steps.
The 'strengths' section on Qt is hopelessly lacking.

I know that Gtk+ is also OO, but to me it seems they bend over backwards to use C++ features from C, creating a bit of a mess. It is not as clean or consistent, either.

As well, while I H8 Motif, the fact that it was overlooked in this review is pretty bad.

A BIG FAN of Qt,
Jamie.

Re:what no TK?

[__aavhli5779]

More importantly... What, no GNUstep?

It's amazing how much GNUstep is overlooked given that it is the only toolkit whose featureset can compete with qt. Just like qt, GNUstep is a full framework covering much more than simply building a GUI, and can thus be the foundation of an entire application/environment. The OpenStep frameworks (of which GNUstep is an open-source rewrite) address everything from low-level primitives (collection classes, advanced memory management with garbage collection) to networking, file operations, GUI operations (with a graphical IDE and GUI builder modeled after NeXT, now Apple's Project Builder/Interface Builder) and more.

If more attention were paid to GNUstep, it would get the usage that it deserves. I find it superior to almost every toolkit except for qt (with which it competes neck-to-neck in terms of featureset and consistency), and any Mac OS X or OpenStep/NeXTStep programmer will give a glowing recommendation. Plus, it uses Objective-C :)