| |||||||||||||
A GNOME 3.0 planA GNOME 3.0 planPosted Apr 3, 2009 21:53 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: A GNOME 3.0 plan by Cyberax Parent article: A GNOME 3.0 plan
A. Gnome 3.0 is not going to be a nearly as significant of a change as GTK1 to GTK2 or from KDE3/QT3 to KDE4/QT4. It'll be a revamp of some UI features and depreciation of old features in a effort to remove dependencies and improve performance.
B.If QT is good and it is using C++ then what is the point to having two QTs? Why not just use KDE instead of Gnome? Why not just get rid of Gnome altogether if you think it should be all C++ or that it should be QT.. you already have everything you want, right?
(Log in to post comments)
A GNOME 3.0 plan Posted Apr 4, 2009 18:40 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
A) It's better be significant or GNOME is going to lose to Windows 7 and KDE4.
B) I would just throw out all GTK code right now If I could. But of course, there's just too much legacy code in GTK. So it's better to provide a clean migration path from GTK to QT.
A GNOME 3.0 plan Posted Apr 5, 2009 3:58 UTC (Sun) by Ze (guest, #54182) [Link]
>>B.If QT is good and it is using C++ then what is the point to having two QTs? Why not just use KDE instead of Gnome? Why not just get rid of Gnome altogether if you think it should be all C++ or that it should be QT.. you already have everything you want, right?
How about because QT is nearly as hacky as GTK+? Some of us would like a nice C++ library that uses standard libraries (or boost) and not some Hack that relies on Macro's and throws away type safety.
|
|||||||||||||