Re: GQT

[Joerg Bornschein <core disorder ruhr de>]

Brian Bruns wrote:

> > other reasons too - look & feel of qt, c++-only, etc.) Have you seen the
> > harmony project? they're writing a binary-compatible GPL clone (that also
> > adds to qt) of qt. perhaps talk to them, as well? if not for a merging of
> > the products to get some ideas/suggestions. i don't have a url, but if you
> > search slashdot for "kde" and find the kde 1.0 released article, it should
> > be there.
> I'm planning on looking at harmony, I didn't realize they had that much
> done,thanks. If they have a moc compiler ready that would be very helpful.

Harmony isnīt usable till now - people are working hard at building
base and support classes. But process looks really good now..... And
magna ( moc replacement ) is working as far as i can tell.....
ps: harmony will not be binary compatible....

The URL is http://harmony.ruhr.de - not everything is uptodate :(

> The reason I didn't want to do a harmony like project is that we would
> still have two competing widget sets, now I'll admit to having a liking
> for gtk (I'm more of a C programmer than C++), but it seems the only
> realistic way is to ride the higher level one (Qt) over the lower level
> one (gtk).

There was much discussion about this issue on the harmony-mailinglist.
Many people ( me too ) prefered a wrapper than building from scratch,
but it
seems building from scratch is TheRightThing to do..... 
( speed, event-handling/callback etc.... GTK+ and Qt-events are much
different:( )
But since theming is supported and one of the first themes will provide
a GTK+ look
it shouldnīt hurd too much.....


bye
      Joerg
--
bye
      Joerg
--
                it beeps ? you may want to port linux to it if it beeps !
(somebody at slashdot about palm-sized computer)