Re: [gtk-list] Re: KDE Gnome Qt gtk--

[Tero Pulkkinen <terop students cc tut fi>]

Nathan Froyd <maestrox@geocities.com> writes:
> Why doesn't somebody just take the code from KDE and recast it for GTK
> (or GTK--)? Isn't that the whole idea for GPL'd software - so you don't
> have to reinvent the wheel?

The problem is that it takes alot of time to convert applications to
use gtk, even though the conversion is very straightforward. Also
since you dont know the code, it takes time to learn it andthe code
anyway uses oddities of Qt, like internal structure of their pixmaps
to do direct picture handling. Also by converting the apps, you become
maintainer of it, even tho the original author of the code might be
more suitable for it.

It is certainly better to do a helper library that lets KDE developers
move easily to gtk (no, it should not be for running kde apps directly, but
for helping with transition.) People will do that when they notice what
gtk can do and when theres easy way to use their existing code.

> Don't know about Qt being the BEST toolkit - I'll probably decide after
> trying to write stuff in GTK. ;) What can be said is that Qt has very
> logical ways of doing things - mostly because of the C++ inheritance
> issue. Widgets inherit a lot of useful functions from the base class
> QWidget.

Gtk has the same inheritance structure than Qt. Gtk-- makes it easier
for C++ programmers to use.

> Certainly getting GTK closer to Qt would be nice. See above for
> KDE/GNOME issues.

Gtk-- is already very near Qt. Only thing different is class/method names which
makes it incompatible with Qt. I cannot easily think of any things that would
make gtk-- closer to Qt than it currently is. (if you can figure out, tell me)
(of course theres some design decision done differently, but none of those
are as fundamental as the framework behind them)

-- 
-- Tero Pulkkinen -- terop@modeemi.cs.tut.fi --