User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Clasen: Introducing GtkInspector

Clasen: Introducing GtkInspector

Posted May 20, 2014 14:01 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
In reply to: Clasen: Introducing GtkInspector by coulamac
Parent article: Clasen: Introducing GtkInspector

> Qt is nice. So is GTK. I really don't understand all the energy here devoted to killing GTK. Developers enjoy developing it. Users enjoy using it. Yay for them. Why attack their preferences? Do you think that somehow the attack will make Qt better?

GTK needs to go away because it hampers interoperability. When I write an application and I want to use a GTK widget written by person A and a Qt widget written by person B, I'm fucked, I can't use them together. And users end up with inconsistent desktops because GTK to this day cannot use the KDE file picker dialog. Perhaps they'll fix that some day (I doubt it), but that's just the tip of the iceberg.


(Log in to post comments)

Clasen: Introducing GtkInspector

Posted May 20, 2014 18:46 UTC (Tue) by coulamac (guest, #21690) [Link]

If I understand you correctly, you do not like certain of GTK's widgets and, because you use programs which in turn use GTK, you are irritated that you must use those widgets. This, I understand, is particularly irritating because the corresponding Qt widgets, which you prefer, differ in some material fashion.

As I see it, you have three realistic options: 1) write code that would aid GTK's interoperability widget-wise with Qt (to the extent it's possible); 2) stop using GTK programs and only use Qt ones; or 3) stop worrying and learn to love GTK as well as Qt.

You propose 4): everyone abandon GTK and refactor their projects to use Qt instead of GTK. I assume you propose 4) because there are certain GTK programs you will not abandon because there is no Qt equivalent or one not suitable to your needs.

One problem with 4), however, is that you must convince the developers of each of those programs to make the switch, which is not a trivial undertaking. Those developers may like developing in GTK. Those developers may actually help develop GTK. Those developers may, at the very least, be indifferent to the toolkit and, therefore, would not like to incur the pain and suffering of changing from one toolkit to another.

The other problem with 4) is that there may be users who prefer the way GTK widgets work. To them, the problem may actually be the opposite: they get irritated when they work with Qt programs that work in subtle (or obvious) ways differently than what they are used to because of the toolkit. You are asking them to abandon what they like to accommodate what you like.

Your proposal 4) is unrealistic. Further, even if everyone (developers and users alike) did magically agree with you, the process of refactoring each program and each desktop (GNOME, XFCE, Cinnamon, Mate, etc.) to Qt would likely take years. That is years of development wasted in otherwise quashing bugs, adding features, polishing interfaces, and optimizing code.

Logically, your position does not make sense and would not substantially further the Linux desktop ecosystem, at least not anytime soon. We would be better served cheering on the different projects, no matter what language or widget set they depend on, so long as the project promotes free software. The discourse here, I fear, just puts forward stop energy.



Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds