So there are two primary UI frameworks for *nix: GTK+ and Qt. GTK+ 2.x and 3...

So there are two primary UI frameworks for *nix: GTK+ and Qt. GTK+ 2.x and 3.x are used to implement a variety of desktop environments such as MATE and GNOME. Qt is used for KDE and LXQT. But I'm not writing this to talk about desktop environments. I'm interested in the underlying widget frameworks (GTK+ and Qt). The question of C versus C++ is largely irrelevant to me. (Qt is C++, GTK+ is C. GTK+ also has a C++ wrapper, gtkmm) Which is the superior widget framework? I've noticed GTK+ gets font rendering better. One of the two uses JavaScript faggotry for scenegraphs, I forget which.

tl;dr which one (GTK+ or Qt) does their job better. I'm looking to avoid JS/XML faggotry and I don't care about C vs. C++.

Attached: GTK.png (250x261, 24K)

Qt Widgets makes you deal with Qt MOC, which is objectively worse than JS faggotry
qml is JS faggotry
GTK is C + JS faggotry

Pick your poison. None of this is "better", it's a matter of preference.

Thanks for your response.
>GTK is C + JS faggotry
What aspects of GTK+ are JS?

afaik only GNOME uses JS with GTK+

Qt is pretty popular, GTK is used by literally no one but redhat

I should have mentioned CSS too. Qt and GTK+ both implement CSS for skinning/themes. Is one implementation particularly quirky?

I think both GTK+ and Qt are very popular

Neber used gtk but Qt is pretty decent imo, also has more than graphics.

Enlightenment

forgot about electron

Attached: atom.png (1230x1246, 130K)

What part of Enlightenment is the widget toolkit? Is it in the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries?

Using GTK applications makes me wish I was dead, please for the love of God stick exclusively to Qt

The GTK applications that make me wish I were dead tend to be the GTK+ 3 GNOME ones.

Qml is purely functional
Not multi paradigm js
Qt is objectively superior to the GIMP toolkit

And that's not even true, Gnome Shell just uses JS at the very very end at Desktop composition, long after it's done with GTK.

"QML is the language; its JavaScript runtime is the custom V4 engine[7], since Qt 5.2[8]; and Qt Quick is the 2D scene graph and the UI framework based on it. These are all part of the Qt Declarative module, while the technology is no longer called Qt Declarative."

I know. So GTK+ doesn't have any JS faggotry going on?

You forgot a few, OP! X Athena Widgets, and Motif. I'd rather not use Motif though.

They're both fucking garbage.

Both are shit.
You're welcome.

Attached: 1502067088361.jpg (122x125, 2K)

Xaw is what xcalc, xedit, and nearly every X application is made in. If you don't care about ricing or ``looking good'' it's usable, and written in just C. It also gives users immense customisation power by using X resources.

Qt is a professional framework used in everything from medical devices to embedded automotive IVI GUIs that have strict safety standards etc

>Extremely high quality framework for being as old as it is
>They even have LTS versions
>Android, iOS, BlackBerry, embedded, WASM (beta), osx, windows, linux
>Under continuous professional development for decades
>Huge community

I've used it for a ton of stuff and it really is excellent.

Only issue with it is the licensing is weird. Most stuff is available under LGPL and some stuff under GPL but Qt is owned by a company that wants to make money by selling commercial usage licenses so the LGPL/GPL is used in an antagonistic way. They try 'push' people into using the commercial variants and given people some not really true info (in my non-lawyer opinion) about how you can or can't package applications in certain ways with *GPL.

Other than that shit though its miles ahead of GTK. Just look at GIMP vs something like Krita.

KDE and Qt predate Gnome and GTK.
GTK and Gnome where only conceived because butthurt freetards went autistic about "uhhh Qt and KDE don't comply with my worldview and politics". It should not be used. Gnome/GTK is everything that's wrong with the OSS community.

Attached: 1519702048110.gif (375x426, 2.88M)

>Qt Widgets makes you deal with Qt MOC, which is objectively worse than JS faggotry
>muh MOC
Do you actually have a legit argument for why MOC matters so much? What do you care if there's an extra in-between compile step for a few things? You can do application development without ever concerning yourself with it. I can't think of any time I ever cared about MOC outside of getting the odd obscure error because of a typo and figuring out why (and that's C++'s fault as much as it is MOCs)

>Qt Widgets makes you deal with Qt MOC, which is objectively worse than JS faggotry

Hu? How? I do Qt programming and the MOC is basically invisible. It's really the least of my problems when doing C++ development.

>with Qt you'll have to deal with MOC
Literally a non-issue right there.
Just use Qt Creator and be done with it.

for me it's wxwidgets