Re: Qt for GNOME?

[Behdad Esfahbod <behdad behdad org>]

I also can't help thinking that, why not put a Qt API on top of GNOME
Platform?

Believe it or not, Qt is a more polished and integrated toolkit on the
surface, but we have better and more robust code in the inside.  I say
that from my experience from Pango, having worked with Qt hackers to
merge the text shaping engine of Qt and Pango into HarfBuzz.  We also
have things like cairo, which is becoming the standard drawing API on
freedesktop, is designed with API usability in mind from the beginning,
and is simply too cool to give away.

Just my 0.02CAD,

behdad



On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 19:23 +0430, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 16:36 +0200, Sascha Peilicke wrote:
> > Several blogs reacted on the derStandard.at interview with Marc Shuttleworth, 
> > who mentioned the possibility for GNOME-3.x to be based on the Qt framework.
> > 
> > First of all the relevant postings:
> > 
> > http://derstandard.at/?url=/?id=3413801
> > http://blogs.gnome.org/bolsh/2008/07/16/itwire-shuttleworth-has-some-nice-words-for-kde/
> > http://www.j5live.com/2008/07/16/flames-welcome-is-a-qt-gnome-desirable
> > 
> > I think it's time to start a _serious_ discussion here, but please, pro's and 
> > con's, no flaming and ranting without arguments. 
> 
> I don't see how different that is from random guy off the street saying
> something about GNOME.  I mean, sure, he can afford putting a downstream
> distro or a DVCS together, but setting direction for GNOME?  Kidding
> me...
> 
> Ok, if that's not clear enough, if someone does that, they may as well
> call it something else.
> 
-- 
behdad
http://behdad.org/

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
 Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
        -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759