> QT is now actually _faster_ than GTK and eats less memory.
Really? Got numbers? I keep people saying this and they have lots of nice micro benchmarks and whatnot.. but I never really seen a fair comparision of memory usage under real-world situations. (and no fair including applications like Firefox or OO.org.. they are not Gnome apps.)
Anyways (assuming that is true) just because QT is faster then GTK does not mean that GTK rewritten in C++ is going to be faster then GTK written in C.