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++.
What part of Enlightenment is the widget toolkit? Is it in the Enlightenment Foundation Libraries?
James Jenkins
Using GTK applications makes me wish I was dead, please for the love of God stick exclusively to Qt
Samuel Morris
The GTK applications that make me wish I were dead tend to be the GTK+ 3 GNOME ones.
Ryder Morales
Qml is purely functional Not multi paradigm js Qt is objectively superior to the GIMP toolkit
Jayden Cruz
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.
Daniel Ross
"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?
Logan Flores
You forgot a few, OP! X Athena Widgets, and Motif. I'd rather not use Motif though.
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.
Michael Thompson
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.
Ryder Williams
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.
>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)
David Gray
>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.
Isaiah Moore
>with Qt you'll have to deal with MOC Literally a non-issue right there. Just use Qt Creator and be done with it.