3 ms·
It's not obvious to me: why wouldn't someone using OCaml use QT? I see some bindings; is there something that makes QT less appropriate than GTK, e.g. C++ vs.
by JasonFruit 9y ago
It's not obvious to me: why wouldn't someone using OCaml use QT? I see some bindings; is there something that makes QT less appropriate than GTK, e.g. C++ vs. C?
- dylan-m 9y agoActually, looking back at it: I've been living under a rock and oblivious to how successful Qt Quick has been :b Before I lost the plot, Qt relied on a lot of C++ particulars (and they used to recommend their own precompiler for some features), so it was trickier to work with it from other languages. Some of that has been improved over the years, and it has a simpler surface nowadays with Qt Quick, so, yes, use Qt!
- flukus 9y ago> I see some bindings; is there something that makes QT less appropriate than GTK Qt has a long history of bindings coming and going to the point where I wouldn't trust any of them to last unless they come from the qt team themselves. Couple this with c++ making binary compatibility much harder (https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issues_With_C%2B%2B https://community.kde.org/Policies/Binary_Compatibility_Issu...) and you've got a recipe for frustration.