6 ms·

I love how "professional" Qt code and API feels compared to GTK+ and how their team is not involved in any political drama. Always a joy to use their products.

by jbirer 4y ago

sho_hn 4y ago
There's plenty of political drama around Qt. Not a fan of comments that praise product A with some sort of vaguely axe-grinding reference to product B.
jmnicolas 4y ago
They're both C++ though. Bindings aren't ideal, I wish there was a native Linux gui toolkit with a "sane" language.
- FpUser 4y ago
  Try Lazarus FreePascal IDE. Has extensive GUI you can design visually
- sho_hn 4y ago
  GTK+ is C. There's C++ bindings (gtkmm), but they don't have a lot of uptake.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > They're both C++ though. One of them is. > Bindings aren't ideal, I wish there was a native Linux gui toolkit with a "sane" language. There's none, because all the linux GUI toolkit developers are "sane" enough to make the toolkit x-platform. If you're looking for "something that runs on linux, and linux only, and nowhere else" you are not going to find anything the way you find "something that runs on windows, and windows only, and nowhere else".
  - favsq 4y ago
    >One of them is. None of them I'd say. I'd argue moc is not C++
    - sho_hn 4y ago
      There's a lot of overstated FUD about the moc. It's a preprocessor that expands a few macro strings into relatively simple boilerplate C++. Yes, it's a separate little preprocessor binary instead of using C++'s built-in macro system, but the concept itself is not foreign to C++. The macro incantations aren't massively complicated and mostly are simple labels placed in header files; body code rarely uses anything moc-related these days. Compared to the crazy stuff Microsoft has done over the years within and on top of C++ on their platform, Qt's moc is barely a footnote. I respect not liking it, and I totally get the appeal of doing the same thing with tools built directly into the language (which to this day aren't fully comparable, and are mostly recent - check into the verdigris project for a solid and interesting take on attempting this), but it's a reasonably straight-forward approach to the problems it solves.
      - simplotek 4y ago
        > Yes, it's a separate little preprocessor binary instead of using C++'s built-in macro system, but the concept itself is not foreign to C++. It does have it's drawbacks. The MOC heavily penalizes build times, and build caching tools like ccache don't work out of the box with it. So not only does the MOC worsens builds, it also prevents basic optimizations from mitigating it. > Compared to the crazy stuff Microsoft has done over the years (...) Microsoft did a fantastic job with it's GUI frameworks. WPF is a stellar example of getting most things right. It's astounding how views are so trivial with WPF. XAML voodoo has it's critics but no one praising Qt would ever dare point a finger at XAML.
        sho_hn 4y ago
        > It does have it's drawbacks. The MOC heavily penalizes build times, and build caching tools like ccache don't work out of the box with it. So not only does the MOC worsens builds, it also prevents basic optimizations from mitigating it. You have to compare those drawbacks directly to the alternatives, though. I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths. Yes, perhaps optimizing the compilers would be nicer. > You have to compare those drawbacks to the alternatives, though. I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths. Maybe so, but this is not what my comment is about. What I'm saying is that MS has made much more invasive changes to C++ as a language than Qt has in its platforms or frameworks, e.g. compiler-backed extended and different behavior. Or look at C++/CX (since phased out, thankfully). There's a lot of "If you're using Qt you're not using C++!!1" FUD to confuse newbies, while it's much easier to inadvertently write non-portable C++ with many other frameworks. Yes, it's a whatboutism (which I hope to have compensated for with many other detailed comments in the thread), but this double standard tends to irk me.
  - zorr 4y ago
    GTK has bindings to modern languages. The gtk-rs project is actively working on Rust bindings. I'm personally working with some others on Kotlin Native bindings and I know a new JVM effort is in progress using the new JVM FFI capabilities.
- BearOso 4y ago
  Gtk is C, but it's introspected in a way that it generates really good bindings for other languages. gtkmm and gtk-rs are really good. Qt is C++ through and through. Even more so because of its MOC. It's really hard to port to other languages. If we wanted a standard toolkit for Linux, it'd have to be written C to be compatible with most FFIs. The problem with Gtk is it's in coalition with Gnome, and its developers shun anything not fitting that scope.
  - sho_hn 4y ago
    > Even more so because of its MOC. Ho-humm, I'd argue that specific point. The meta-object system adds introspection and reflection, and helps it get e.g. fantastic Python bindings. Various other bindings are also basically built around wrapping QObject+QMetaObject. Yes, binding Qt is anyway harder than GTK's C API. But not because of the MOC.
    - BearOso 4y ago
      That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought about the MOC helping introspection.
  - cglong 4y ago
    Having never written using any of these technologies, I was wondering how ergonomic GTK would be in Rust. Isn't GTK very object-oriented in its design?
    - zorr 4y ago
      Check out the gtk-rs project which provides the Rust bindings.
- smallstepforman 4y ago
  > They're both C++ though. I’d argue that Qt API is pre-C++98, ie. pre std template library. Qt uses its own classes (vector, string, etc) instead of std template library. Even the MOC can be eliminated with the STL. Its an ancient API which is separate from modern post C++11. They’ve tried adding some STL and C++11 concepts, but they have millions of lines of legacy code to support, so its just more layers and bloat.
  - sho_hn 4y ago
    You're not completely wrong, but I think this overstating things by a lot. I'll grant you the containers for example, but you can generally use STL algorithms with them. And plenty of old ways of doing things have left modern Qt-based codebases and moved to more modern ways of doing things, including a fair amount of moc macro usage (and yes, you can remove the moc these days, but it has different perf characteristics - cf. the verdigris project). The community around Qt is pretty active at adopting modern C++, e.g. imho https://github.com/danvratil/qcoro https://github.com/danvratil/qcoro is leading work. I'm glad that folks clamor for keeping things fresh, but every 30 year old project is going to span a few minor revolutions along the way.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    It is still C++ and in many aspects, much better than the current trends on the standard library design. Also, alongside VCL/Firemonkey, miles ahead of any C++ UI framework produced by Microsoft, WinDev just has no taste in doing GUI tooling for C++ developers.
jeroenhd 4y ago
I kind of disagree. GTK+ gets a lot of (sometimes deserved) flak for their API choices but Qt isn't all that different. They have plenty of weird legacy APIs, design choices, and restrictions on their API design so they can keep selling their paid products. With GTK+ you get a Gitlab issue where everyone from GTK+ developers to /g/ users spout their opinions and then eventually the team and the developers take a decision that's probably going against at least half the comments in the thread. With Qt you get "this is the API, live with it". I'd describe its API design method close(r) to the Windows API than any open source API I know of. Sure, it creates a lot less drama, but at the cost of openness. I'm not a fan of any Linux UI design toolkit, but I found GNOME Builder to be much more intuitive and working better out of the box than Qt Creator. GNOME's UI language may be... a choice, but Qt applications often feel like toy UIs or those fake operating systems you find in games without some pretty deliberate planning (and styling). With libadwaita being brought into GTK+ I think neither looks any good out of the box now, but the tooling for GNOME seems a lot better at least. In terms of API and tooling support, I don't think any open projects come close to what Microsoft did with Visual Studio and C# back in 2005.
- sho_hn 4y ago
  > With Qt you get "this is the API, live with it". This is true often, but not always. Quite a bit of Qt APIs get created collaboratively on gerrit; I've had API changed based on my input. It's also possible to contribute APIs; I've done that, too. Some bigger new modules or API surface area is also moved through Qt Labs first before becoming part of the product, making for a longer feedback period. We've also had Qt folks actively attending events like Akademy to demo new WIP APIs and gather feedback and feature requests and engage in PoC ports of real software. There's also venues like the annual Qt Contributor Summit for larger discussions. You're right that this open approach is not the only channel for APIs into Qt, and in hybrid communities like his there's always some tension, and of course having to be a little "in the know" or engaged in the community means there's perhaps a higher barrier to entry in some ways. I respect not liking that and preferring if there's only a community-based channel. It's also worth pointing out that for the most part, Qt has a fairly healthy approach to low/mid/high level customizability and extensibility to its API. It has internalized this as one of the reasons for its success, even if it sadly fell a bit by the wayside during the early Qt Quick years. That means that "this is the API, live with it" is not really a straitjacket - you get to override, supplant, extend a lot.
saidinesh5 4y ago
With Qt, the drama has been usually around licensing, GPL fearmongering etc.. That being said I do like their API design guidelines ( https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles ) and coding conventions ( https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions ). Valuable read for any developer.

I love how "professional" Qt code and API feels compared to GTK+ and how their team is not involved in any political drama. Always a joy to use their products.

by jbirer 4y ago

I love how "professional" Qt code and API feels compared to GTK+ and how their team is not involved in any political drama. Always a joy to use their products.

sho_hn 4y ago

There's plenty of political drama around Qt. Not a fan of comments that praise product A with some sort of vaguely axe-grinding reference to product B.

jmnicolas 4y ago

They're both C++ though. Bindings aren't ideal, I wish there was a native Linux gui toolkit with a "sane" language.

FpUser 4y ago
Try Lazarus FreePascal IDE. Has extensive GUI you can design visually
sho_hn 4y ago
GTK+ is C. There's C++ bindings (gtkmm), but they don't have a lot of uptake.
lelanthran 4y ago
> They're both C++ though. One of them is. > Bindings aren't ideal, I wish there was a native Linux gui toolkit with a "sane" language. There's none, because all the linux GUI toolkit developers are "sane" enough to make the toolkit x-platform. If you're looking for "something that runs on linux, and linux only, and nowhere else" you are not going to find anything the way you find "something that runs on windows, and windows only, and nowhere else".
- favsq 4y ago
  >One of them is. None of them I'd say. I'd argue moc is not C++
  - sho_hn 4y ago
    There's a lot of overstated FUD about the moc. It's a preprocessor that expands a few macro strings into relatively simple boilerplate C++. Yes, it's a separate little preprocessor binary instead of using C++'s built-in macro system, but the concept itself is not foreign to C++. The macro incantations aren't massively complicated and mostly are simple labels placed in header files; body code rarely uses anything moc-related these days. Compared to the crazy stuff Microsoft has done over the years within and on top of C++ on their platform, Qt's moc is barely a footnote. I respect not liking it, and I totally get the appeal of doing the same thing with tools built directly into the language (which to this day aren't fully comparable, and are mostly recent - check into the verdigris project for a solid and interesting take on attempting this), but it's a reasonably straight-forward approach to the problems it solves.
    - simplotek 4y ago
      > Yes, it's a separate little preprocessor binary instead of using C++'s built-in macro system, but the concept itself is not foreign to C++. It does have it's drawbacks. The MOC heavily penalizes build times, and build caching tools like ccache don't work out of the box with it. So not only does the MOC worsens builds, it also prevents basic optimizations from mitigating it. > Compared to the crazy stuff Microsoft has done over the years (...) Microsoft did a fantastic job with it's GUI frameworks. WPF is a stellar example of getting most things right. It's astounding how views are so trivial with WPF. XAML voodoo has it's critics but no one praising Qt would ever dare point a finger at XAML.
      - sho_hn 4y ago
        > It does have it's drawbacks. The MOC heavily penalizes build times, and build caching tools like ccache don't work out of the box with it. So not only does the MOC worsens builds, it also prevents basic optimizations from mitigating it. You have to compare those drawbacks directly to the alternatives, though. I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths. Yes, perhaps optimizing the compilers would be nicer. > You have to compare those drawbacks to the alternatives, though. I don't have numbers to cite, but I think the attempts at replacing the moc with newer C++ lang features also usually didn't exactly hit the compiler fast paths. Maybe so, but this is not what my comment is about. What I'm saying is that MS has made much more invasive changes to C++ as a language than Qt has in its platforms or frameworks, e.g. compiler-backed extended and different behavior. Or look at C++/CX (since phased out, thankfully). There's a lot of "If you're using Qt you're not using C++!!1" FUD to confuse newbies, while it's much easier to inadvertently write non-portable C++ with many other frameworks. Yes, it's a whatboutism (which I hope to have compensated for with many other detailed comments in the thread), but this double standard tends to irk me.
- zorr 4y ago
  GTK has bindings to modern languages. The gtk-rs project is actively working on Rust bindings. I'm personally working with some others on Kotlin Native bindings and I know a new JVM effort is in progress using the new JVM FFI capabilities.
BearOso 4y ago
Gtk is C, but it's introspected in a way that it generates really good bindings for other languages. gtkmm and gtk-rs are really good. Qt is C++ through and through. Even more so because of its MOC. It's really hard to port to other languages. If we wanted a standard toolkit for Linux, it'd have to be written C to be compatible with most FFIs. The problem with Gtk is it's in coalition with Gnome, and its developers shun anything not fitting that scope.
- sho_hn 4y ago
  > Even more so because of its MOC. Ho-humm, I'd argue that specific point. The meta-object system adds introspection and reflection, and helps it get e.g. fantastic Python bindings. Various other bindings are also basically built around wrapping QObject+QMetaObject. Yes, binding Qt is anyway harder than GTK's C API. But not because of the MOC.
  - BearOso 4y ago
    That's an interesting point. I hadn't thought about the MOC helping introspection.
- cglong 4y ago
  Having never written using any of these technologies, I was wondering how ergonomic GTK would be in Rust. Isn't GTK very object-oriented in its design?
  - zorr 4y ago
    Check out the gtk-rs project which provides the Rust bindings.
smallstepforman 4y ago
> They're both C++ though. I’d argue that Qt API is pre-C++98, ie. pre std template library. Qt uses its own classes (vector, string, etc) instead of std template library. Even the MOC can be eliminated with the STL. Its an ancient API which is separate from modern post C++11. They’ve tried adding some STL and C++11 concepts, but they have millions of lines of legacy code to support, so its just more layers and bloat.
- sho_hn 4y ago
  You're not completely wrong, but I think this overstating things by a lot. I'll grant you the containers for example, but you can generally use STL algorithms with them. And plenty of old ways of doing things have left modern Qt-based codebases and moved to more modern ways of doing things, including a fair amount of moc macro usage (and yes, you can remove the moc these days, but it has different perf characteristics - cf. the verdigris project). The community around Qt is pretty active at adopting modern C++, e.g. imho https://github.com/danvratil/qcoro https://github.com/danvratil/qcoro is leading work. I'm glad that folks clamor for keeping things fresh, but every 30 year old project is going to span a few minor revolutions along the way.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  It is still C++ and in many aspects, much better than the current trends on the standard library design. Also, alongside VCL/Firemonkey, miles ahead of any C++ UI framework produced by Microsoft, WinDev just has no taste in doing GUI tooling for C++ developers.

jeroenhd 4y ago

I kind of disagree. GTK+ gets a lot of (sometimes deserved) flak for their API choices but Qt isn't all that different. They have plenty of weird legacy APIs, design choices, and restrictions on their API design so they can keep selling their paid products. With GTK+ you get a Gitlab issue where everyone from GTK+ developers to /g/ users spout their opinions and then eventually the team and the developers take a decision that's probably going against at least half the comments in the thread. With Qt you get "this is the API, live with it". I'd describe its API design method close(r) to the Windows API than any open source API I know of. Sure, it creates a lot less drama, but at the cost of openness. I'm not a fan of any Linux UI design toolkit, but I found GNOME Builder to be much more intuitive and working better out of the box than Qt Creator. GNOME's UI language may be... a choice, but Qt applications often feel like toy UIs or those fake operating systems you find in games without some pretty deliberate planning (and styling). With libadwaita being brought into GTK+ I think neither looks any good out of the box now, but the tooling for GNOME seems a lot better at least. In terms of API and tooling support, I don't think any open projects come close to what Microsoft did with Visual Studio and C# back in 2005.

sho_hn 4y ago
> With Qt you get "this is the API, live with it". This is true often, but not always. Quite a bit of Qt APIs get created collaboratively on gerrit; I've had API changed based on my input. It's also possible to contribute APIs; I've done that, too. Some bigger new modules or API surface area is also moved through Qt Labs first before becoming part of the product, making for a longer feedback period. We've also had Qt folks actively attending events like Akademy to demo new WIP APIs and gather feedback and feature requests and engage in PoC ports of real software. There's also venues like the annual Qt Contributor Summit for larger discussions. You're right that this open approach is not the only channel for APIs into Qt, and in hybrid communities like his there's always some tension, and of course having to be a little "in the know" or engaged in the community means there's perhaps a higher barrier to entry in some ways. I respect not liking that and preferring if there's only a community-based channel. It's also worth pointing out that for the most part, Qt has a fairly healthy approach to low/mid/high level customizability and extensibility to its API. It has internalized this as one of the reasons for its success, even if it sadly fell a bit by the wayside during the early Qt Quick years. That means that "this is the API, live with it" is not really a straitjacket - you get to override, supplant, extend a lot.

saidinesh5 4y ago

With Qt, the drama has been usually around licensing, GPL fearmongering etc.. That being said I do like their API design guidelines ( https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles https://wiki.qt.io/API_Design_Principles ) and coding conventions ( https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions https://wiki.qt.io/Coding_Conventions ). Valuable read for any developer.