3 ms·

You should checkout gtk-rs[0] too if you're settled on rust but have an option to pick other GUI library. 0: https://gtk-rs.org/ https://gtk-rs.org/

fxfan 8y ago
I have not but I looked at qml and find it elegant. I will give it a look.
dkersten 8y ago
Can you say a little bit about what makes it great? Is it just a well designed wrapper? Super easy to use? Good documentation? More mature than Rusts Qt bindings? Personally, I like Qt a lot more than GTK (both as a programmer and a user), but to each their own. QtQuick/QML is really great way of quickly whipping together complex UI’s. I’ve never used Qt on Rust though.
- vhakulinen 8y ago
  I have virtually no experience with Qt (as a developer). That said, I find the gtk-rs bindings good and easy to use in rust. They are automatically generated from C code, and as the generator matures the bindings come more and more complete. Tho' some of the bindings are manually written. AFAIK Gtk has QML counter part, but I haven't used that either. The documentation isn't perfect but its _really_ easy to map the documentation of the bindings to the original C documentation. From quick glance the situation seems to be more or less (maybe a bit less) the same with python bindings for Gtk. I personally have enjoyed the gtk-rs bindings.
- uranusjr 8y ago
  Hopefully my experience could be useful, having tried rust-qt just a while ago on a project. Bottom line: it is usable. It is pretty trivial if you want to build an almost purely QML app. As soon as you want to do some C++ stuff (e.g. registering new C++ classes, using QtWidgets), however, things go south very quickly. The main problem is that Qt has its own ideas about ownership (QObject-parent-stuff), and Rust really does not like that. You end of working a lot with raw pointers and boxes. It feels like you’re writing C++ but in Rust (if that makes sense). Rust-qt is really nice IMO, and I would extremely encourage anyone interested to take a look, and provide more feedbacks and contributions to the maintainers (I am not one of them). Some non-trivial examples would help a lot. But expect sharp edges.

fxfan 8y ago

I have not but I looked at qml and find it elegant. I will give it a look.

dkersten 8y ago

Can you say a little bit about what makes it great? Is it just a well designed wrapper? Super easy to use? Good documentation? More mature than Rusts Qt bindings? Personally, I like Qt a lot more than GTK (both as a programmer and a user), but to each their own. QtQuick/QML is really great way of quickly whipping together complex UI’s. I’ve never used Qt on Rust though.

vhakulinen 8y ago
I have virtually no experience with Qt (as a developer). That said, I find the gtk-rs bindings good and easy to use in rust. They are automatically generated from C code, and as the generator matures the bindings come more and more complete. Tho' some of the bindings are manually written. AFAIK Gtk has QML counter part, but I haven't used that either. The documentation isn't perfect but its _really_ easy to map the documentation of the bindings to the original C documentation. From quick glance the situation seems to be more or less (maybe a bit less) the same with python bindings for Gtk. I personally have enjoyed the gtk-rs bindings.
uranusjr 8y ago
Hopefully my experience could be useful, having tried rust-qt just a while ago on a project. Bottom line: it is usable. It is pretty trivial if you want to build an almost purely QML app. As soon as you want to do some C++ stuff (e.g. registering new C++ classes, using QtWidgets), however, things go south very quickly. The main problem is that Qt has its own ideas about ownership (QObject-parent-stuff), and Rust really does not like that. You end of working a lot with raw pointers and boxes. It feels like you’re writing C++ but in Rust (if that makes sense). Rust-qt is really nice IMO, and I would extremely encourage anyone interested to take a look, and provide more feedbacks and contributions to the maintainers (I am not one of them). Some non-trivial examples would help a lot. But expect sharp edges.