Re: [Fwd: Re: Comparison of Qt to gtkmm]

[Jonathon Jongsma <jonathon jongsma gmail com>]

On 1/24/06, Bob Caryl <bob fis-cal com> wrote:
> Oops!  I guess I should have read that page first!  :(
>

Ha :)

I noticed that too when I googled in response to this request.  One
thing that I did find quite interesting was this discussion on a QT
mailing list debating the merits of some of the design choices in QT:
http://lists.trolltech.com/qt-interest/2002-08/thread00000-0.html

Granted, some of this stuff is probably pretty dated, though I think
the big debate about signals from that thread is still valid.   Having
recently run into some preprocessor abuse and global namespace
pollution with XLib, I'm happy that gtkmm doesn't use the preprocessor
to try to extend the language the way QT seems to.  But to be fair,  I
haven't used QT, so I can't make any judgements about it from personal
experience.  I started using gtkmm about a year or so ago, and I found
it a really well-designed toolkit, and it just feels natural for the
most part.  Most things I've read since then seem to validate that
decision, but you'll probably need something more substantial and
objective than that if you're trying to sell it at your workplace.