3 ms·

You forget about the desktop integration. At the company I work for we also selected Qt, why, because it has very good integration with many desktops. GTK is te

You forget about the desktop integration. At the company I work for we also selected Qt, why, because it has very good integration with many desktops. GTK is terrible in this regard (even support for other desktop on GNU/Linux apart from GNOME is not the best, let alone other OSes). And yes also Qt offers a lot more and is also more intuitive to work with and man the documentation it has, just superb. So yes, listening to user feedback is the most important but the role of a great toolkit to build on is also very important.

badsectoracula 3y ago
> You forget about the desktop integration [...] the documentation it has, just superb. So yes, listening to user feedback is the most important but the role of a great toolkit to build on is also very important. I did not forget it, Qt has great integration and documentation but this was not a comparison of the specific features Qt and some other toolkit like Gtk may have. My claim was that Qt isn't something special that would make Krita successful while using anything else would make it less successful. I didn't bring those things up because they weren't really relevant for my claim. Also FWIW desktop integration for Krita isn't as important as it'd be for some other types of applications - consider that Krita even comes out of the box with its own themes that it uses instead of trying to "blend in" the underlying desktop looks. In terms of what Krita does, there isn't any functionality that it uses from Qt that couldn't be found in other toolkits like Gtk - or other libraries. It wouldn't be the same way and certainly not with the same code, but Krita could have been written using a different GUI library and framework and even in a different language and still had the same success because the GUI framework it uses is not why it is successful: it is the functionality the program provides (which was written by the Krita developers themselves) and the communication the developers have with the users (which isn't even something technical).

badsectoracula 3y ago

> You forget about the desktop integration [...] the documentation it has, just superb. So yes, listening to user feedback is the most important but the role of a great toolkit to build on is also very important. I did not forget it, Qt has great integration and documentation but this was not a comparison of the specific features Qt and some other toolkit like Gtk may have. My claim was that Qt isn't something special that would make Krita successful while using anything else would make it less successful. I didn't bring those things up because they weren't really relevant for my claim. Also FWIW desktop integration for Krita isn't as important as it'd be for some other types of applications - consider that Krita even comes out of the box with its own themes that it uses instead of trying to "blend in" the underlying desktop looks. In terms of what Krita does, there isn't any functionality that it uses from Qt that couldn't be found in other toolkits like Gtk - or other libraries. It wouldn't be the same way and certainly not with the same code, but Krita could have been written using a different GUI library and framework and even in a different language and still had the same success because the GUI framework it uses is not why it is successful: it is the functionality the program provides (which was written by the Krita developers themselves) and the communication the developers have with the users (which isn't even something technical).