QT or GTK?

Message

kesuari · Post by **kesuari** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:30 pm

I find KDE apps to be ugly and much too complicated---I gave Konqueror a shot a few days ago and wow. GTK2, OTOH, is much better looking, and has nicer apps written for it. As far as pure Qt-apps go, the only one I know I've used is Opera, and it has a sucky interface too.

So my perspective is based on an end-user one. And from that one, GTK2 > Qt.

I've hacked a few ROX-Lib2 apps and didn't find any problems with GTK+Python+ROX. But I haven't touched C or C++ (yet---we're doing them this semester at Uni) so I wouldn't know.

Senso · Post by **Senso** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:31 pm

I use PyGTK.

Unne · Post by **Unne** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:42 pm

I never tried programming for either, but I like QT better. GTK1 is pretty hideous. GTK2 is a bit too cartoony for my tastes. Even though I guess you can skin QT and GTK both to look pretty much the same, I tend to like QT sorts of skins better. I've never noticed any speed difference between QT and GTK, they're both fast enough for me.

gsfgf · Post by **gsfgf** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:49 pm

I prefer programming w/ qt, but you can't avoid gtk on a system so i only use gtk apps.

Cossins · Post by **Cossins** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 3:38 pm

I think deciding which toolkit is better from the looks of each is a bit... unfair. Both toolkits are close to 100% themeable, so in principle you can make each one look exactly how you like it...

Personally, I prefer Mosfet's Liquid Widgets or Keramik on Qt and Bluecurve on GTK2 (haven't tried many GTK2 themes, though).

- Simon

ebrostig · Post by **ebrostig** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 5:54 pm

There is no doubt in my mind: QT!

GTK is clumsy and looks ugly and very amateurish in its design. Qt on the other hand has a polished look and is very programmable.

I guess this tends to boil down to whether you like Gnome or KDE and that also dictates your view on the toolkits. Gnome to me doesn't look right, it doesn't feel right and it lacks stuff in heaps and throwes and is still lightyears away from KDE.

Oh well

War is on!

Behave or the lock monster will visit this thread too

Erik

axxackall · Post by **axxackall** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 10:50 pm

zhenlin wrote:You forgot these options:

Cocoa/AppKit
Motif
Xlib

One more option: XUL

MrF · Post by **MrF** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:20 pm

as a user : GTK2, with a good theme it's far cleaner looking imo.

as a coder : GTK2. I've coded C++/Java code as a job for ~10 years. I'm so comfortable using and writing OO code that I'm incapable of writing non-OO/procedural C code, but the last thing I want is someone else's OO permeating and affecting my code. C libraries far easier to encapsulate and use than C++ ones. The pain of writing a layer that does so, is far less than the pain of dealing with the 'issues' that always popup in merging the way I think and the library's designer thinks. (nih? *shrug*)

telex4 · Post by **telex4** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:59 pm

Personally, Qt, but that's only because I use KDE and can't enjoy using GNOME. Only Qt apps are in any way integrated with KDE, so I always prefer Qt apps to Gtk apps if they're similar feature wise.

From a programming point of view, I've therefore just defaulted to using Qt (well, PyQt), because my apps will only run on GNU/Linux so the licensing isn't so much of an issue. I'm uncomfortable with it, but since Qt is under the GPL and QPL, and we're now seeing GPLed ports to platforms other than X11 coming through, there's less reason to worry about the licensing.

I think a more interesting poll here would be: do you prefer a particular toolkit because:
a) it's the toolkit for your favourite DE/WM
b) you prefer to code with it (and have tried others)
c) you prefer the philosophy of the toolkit + authors + copyright holders
d) more of your favourite apps use it
e) other reason

charlieg · Post by **charlieg** » Tue Jul 22, 2003 11:59 pm

axxackall wrote:
zhenlin wrote:You forgot these options:

Cocoa/AppKit
Motif
Xlib
One more option: XUL

XUL, and other similar options such as xwt, are not really viable comparisons for reasons I'm too tired to state.

chizu · Post by **chizu** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 1:58 am

Uhmmm... isn't Cocoa propriatary and only on MacOS X? IMO Cocoa isn't even relevant.

As for Motif and TK, these seem like they have been replaced by GTK and QT.

XLib is not a gui toolkit in the same way as GTK and QT. XLib is much lower level.

And XUL, isn't that a system for gui generation that can be layed over XLib, GTK or QT?

zhenlin · Post by **zhenlin** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 2:08 am

The point of the lack of choices indicates the opinion that permeates through most minds...

There are two Linux X11 environments... Two Linux X11 toolkits...

Not!

Yes, I know Cocoa is not exactly an "open" API, but it works. Very well. My code is so empty! (Much of the GUI generation code is nonexistant. GUI objects are deserialized from NIB files)

GNUstep is clone implementation for X11. It has the same ease-of[-not]-programming.

hook · Post by **hook** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:44 am

Bloody Bastard wrote:Deja vu.

seconf to that

chizu · Post by **chizu** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 6:48 am

Hmm, I was unaware of exactly what GNUstep was

. Still it is an architecture run by Apple. And it is something that hasn't changed in 10 years, sure a measure of stability but also a lack of innovation. I would rather use something complex and sometimes confusing than closed. And GNUstep seems ugly

.

I thought of adding more choices but I really wanted to know, If QT or GTK were the only choices (as I have come to believe (but that doesn't matter

)), which would you prefer? I didn't really want to muck about with TCL/TK and Motif...

zhenlin · Post by **zhenlin** » Wed Jul 23, 2003 12:12 pm

GNUstep looks ugly, true; but have you seen Cocoa on Aqua? Same application code, same API, different implementation.

Opteron · Post by **Opteron** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 7:43 am

I myself use GTK2 fulltime (Gnome). I also program a little bit and I have both tested QT and GTK2 when it comes to programming, and I must say that GTK2 is much more fun to code than QT according to me.

But I would be happier if GTK2 was a little bit faster than it is right now.

And the best thing that could ever happen to the linux community was one united gui-toolkit QT+GTK2 togehter. But I guess that will never ever happen

asimon · Post by **asimon** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 8:32 am

I would never ever use GTK+ for an project with an object-oriented design. I've done that once. OO-programming with GTK+ is too inefficient. You have to write much more code than with Qt and the needed casting-nightmare is error prone. I am much faster with Qt, therefore Qt is it for me.

My fazit is:
* GTK+ is the best C toolkit
* Qt is the best C++ toolkit

I would not use Qt for a C project and I woudn't use GTK+ for a C++ project. And Gtkmm (or what it's called today) is a joke IMO. Also interesting how much actual oo-programming gets done with GTK+. Most GTK+ apps I looked at are imperative and not oo. I don't say that's a bad thing, but IMO oo is much better suited for GUI programming, where you often want to extent or modify existing widgets. Another point is that Objects with GTK+ are very expensive. Usually you don't want to use them if you don't have to. Not good if you want to progarm oo.

Regarding the costs for Qt when it comes to propritary software: If I save some weeks because I am more efficient with Qt, it's well worth it.

chizu · Post by **chizu** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:09 am

I know cocoa looks beautiful on MacOS X but I don't expect my apps to run primarly on proprietary architectures. Thus Linux and *BSD are what I'm programming for.

GTK not OO based is due to it being developed for the lowest common denominator so that it can be ported to higher levels of abstraction easily.

asimon · Post by **asimon** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 9:29 am

chizu wrote: GTK not OO based is due to it being developed for the lowest common denominator so that it can be ported to higher levels of abstraction easily.

But GTK+ is object-oriented (just many GTK+ apps by themselves are not). Every GTK+ widget is a GObject. GTK+'s object system is very similar to that of Java. You can program OO even in Assembler. GTK+ is written in C, so I see no lowest common denominator problem when it comes to OO (I think GTK+'s developers already eleminated all or most uses of GCC extensions). It's just that C has no support (i.e. syntactic sugar) for OO, so you end up writing usually more code than you would do in languages which explicidly support OO programming.

zhenlin · Post by **zhenlin** » Thu Jul 24, 2003 12:56 pm

To continue the Cocoa debate...

GNUstep and Cocoa are mostly source compatible, but only if you don't use NIBs, which eliminates the advantages of using OPENSTEP... Unless you actively maintain both a .nib and a .gmodel...

GNUstep runs well on the intersection of X11 platforms and GCC3 platforms - but for some reason, not on PPC (Gentoo -masks it)

MrStaticVoid · Post by **MrStaticVoid** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 9:14 am

As the end user, I love the clean look of GTK2. I haven't gotten much into Linux programming, but I sure do love Swing in Java. Which toolkit is most like Swing?

dvink · Post by **dvink** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 12:01 pm

I find GTK2 not as snappy and responsive as QT. Dragging windows and resizing all sorts of objects feels slow in GTK2.

Does anyone agree on this? In any case, GTK2 is GPL and makes it a very good piece of free software, but QT licensing can be tricky.

zhenlin · Post by **zhenlin** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 1:05 pm

Which toolkit most like Swing...

.NET forms? (Evil! Not to mention nonfunctional on Linux)

Qt is C++, therefore, manual memory management.
GTK+ is reference-counted C, therefore, semiautomatic memory management.

Both are object oriented.

GTK+ probably involves more preprocessor magic and typing...

But I don't think any of them come close to the autolayout features of Swing.

asimon · Post by **asimon** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:41 pm

[wrong]

dvink wrote: In any case, GTK2 is GPL and makes it a very good piece of free software, but QT licensing can be tricky.

[/wrong]

You didn't even spent 1 minute reading Qt's or GTK+'s lisence, right?

GTK2+ is not GPL, but LGPL and Qt is GPL or QPL. Thus in regard of the Free Software Foundation's (or Mr. Stallman's) definition of Free Software, Qt is actually more free then GTK+, which uses the lesser free software license.

asimon · Post by **asimon** » Sat Jul 26, 2003 2:50 pm

zhenlin wrote: Qt is C++, therefore, manual memory management.
GTK+ is reference-counted C, therefore, semiautomatic memory management.

Qt utilizes reference counting too for it's memory management.
Qt's classes do not less for you than GTK+'s when it comes to memory management.

And don't think because something is written in C++ all memory management is manual. There are even GC's written in C++.