Not logged in
Log in now
Create an account
Subscribe to LWN
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013
A look at the PyPy 2.0 release
PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more
LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013
(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10
Otte: staring into the abyss
Posted Jul 27, 2012 17:44 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Jul 27, 2012 17:56 UTC (Fri) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
The development efficiency gains, which are likely entirely illusionary, don't offset the trashing of an entire software ecosystem. There are plenty of examples close at hand.
Posted Jul 27, 2012 18:15 UTC (Fri) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
Posted Jul 28, 2012 22:30 UTC (Sat) by pboddie (subscriber, #50784)
I know that, for instance, the gimp people are working on GTK3 support, but they also have to contend with really bad bugs and lack of support for Windows and OSX.
I imagine that things have moved backwards in the last few years, then. For a long time people complained about Windows and OS X support, and for a short while it looked like all the pieces were in place, but now we might be back where we were before: so much for that "ISV friendly" weak-copyleft-tending-towards-permissive licensing that meant that anyone doing the portability grunt-work was likely to keep it to themselves rather than share and collaborate; there's a danger that Qt could go the same way if various companies write off their investments.
It's all very sad and a reflection of the last five years or so in the wider free desktop scene.
Posted Jul 29, 2012 12:50 UTC (Sun) by Frej (subscriber, #4165)
And GTK3 works better with the quartz backend than gtk2 ever did, i think the loadable backends helps quite a bit here.
Posted Jul 28, 2012 4:28 UTC (Sat) by daniel (subscriber, #3181)
Who said anything about rewriting everything? For one thing, the entire back end should stay unchanged, and if it can't because it lived its entire life so far joined at the hip to its GUI then that needed fixing anyway. Fix any places like that as the first step of the rewrite while still staying with GTK. That is normally a fairly easy iterative process.
Then... enjoy the ease and rapid development of QT. It's just really easy and pleasant, speaking from experience. And keep the GTK interface around as a compilation option so long as it is not too much of a burden.
In any case, the basic structure of the interface will not change because QT follows essentially the same model (register a widget; register layouts in the widget; register subwidgets in the layouts; connect UI events to program actions). Except easier to write and easier to debug, easier to get the defaults right, and easier to add new functionality in a generic way.
Posted Jul 28, 2012 7:55 UTC (Sat) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185)
In any case, while there might be some way to do a semi-automated port (KDAB has tools for that, they used to port lots of code from Motif to Qt), I don't consider such a scenario as realistic. You can quibble about the difference between "rewriting everything" or "just adding another front-end", but the fact remains: it's a nearly impossible amount of work.
I'm not sure Raven667 got the point, though -- he talks about "the development efficiency gains, which are likely entirely illusionary". The issue isn't that these huge and important projects would enjoy the benefits of working with Qt, it's that they don't die because their platform is starving to death.
Posted Jul 29, 2012 7:46 UTC (Sun) by bluebugs (subscriber, #71022)
Posted Jul 31, 2012 10:56 UTC (Tue) by ebassi (subscriber, #54855)
you, sir, win at the Internets today.
Copyright © 2013, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds