3 ms·
Please consider Qt as well, the implementation is solid and its easy to make apps that are performant and polished.
by dman 11y ago
Please consider Qt as well, the implementation is solid and its easy to make apps that are performant and polished.
- raphlinus 11y agoQt 4 or 5? I had difficulty getting even "hello world" running in 5, and the size of deploy binaries (~16M) was scary. Maybe that doesn't matter so much if it'll primarily be using system libraries.
- oblio 11y agoAt this point? 5, definitely :)
- dman 11y agoI use Qt4 and QWidgets - its by far the most pleasant desktop UI development toolkit Ive used. (Ive used qt, gtk, wx, win32 with gdi/gdi+ and a bit of swing).
- lmm 11y agoWhat went wrong with 5? And yeah use dynamic linking, that's what it's for.
- IshKebab 11y agoThe binary size is mostly due to improved unicode support (libicu) and QML.
- raphlinus 11y agoThe specific thing that went wrong was trying to use the homebrew version. 4 just worked out of the box, no hassle. I do of course have access to a Linux machine, but it'd be convenient to do development on my Mac as well. I'm willing to give it another shot but need to be convinced it's worthwhile.
- lmm 11y agoWell, I think Qt looks really pretty and generally prefer Qt apps over GTK versions. I find it nicer as a programmer too. I've known projects to migrate from GTK to Qt (in particular Rosegarden, which used to have a great blog post about how much nicer it made everything that I sadly can't find now) - looking at https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt https://www.wikivs.com/wiki/GTK_vs_Qt there's a big list of projects that have switched from GTK to Qt and none that have gone in the other direction.