User forums > Using Code::Blocks
My pretty Qt!
incorrect user:
--- Quote from: yop on September 19, 2007, 08:55:00 am ---
--- Quote from: mandrav on September 18, 2007, 07:04:02 pm ---... Qt apps didn't use (don't know if they do now) the native toolkit for each platform which also made it a no-no.
--- End quote ---
They still don't. Both Windows and Mac native toolkits are emulated (in Linux Qt *is* a "native" toolkit).
--- End quote ---
Could you please explaine what do you mean under "native toolkits"?
stahta01:
--- Quote from: incorrect user on September 19, 2007, 01:44:06 pm ---Could you please explaine what do you mean under "native toolkits"?
--- End quote ---
As used here I think it is used to say the "Look and Feel" does not change to match the native OS "Look and Feel"
In other words an wxMSW/wxWidgets app looks like an MS Windows app, but an QT app does not.
Edit: From your links below QT has a much better native "Look and Feel" than GTK+ does.
I have never used QT, but I do run some GTK+ apps under windows.
Tim S
incorrect user:
Ok, but see http://trolltech.com/products/qt/features/index
it says that "Qt applications run natively - indistinguishable from native applications - compiled from a single source code-base on all major platforms" and "Using Qt delivers true platform independence - code once and deploy anywhere. Targeting a new platform demands little more than a simple recompile of a single source code-base"
I just think i've not understood mandrav and yop correctly...
By the way, you can see their screenshots also
JGM:
--- Quote from: incorrect user on September 19, 2007, 01:54:03 pm ---Ok, but see http://trolltech.com/products/qt/features/index
it says that "Qt applications run natively - indistinguishable from native applications - compiled from a single source code-base on all major platforms" and "Using Qt delivers true platform independence - code once and deploy anywhere. Targeting a new platform demands little more than a simple recompile of a single source code-base"
I just think i've not understood mandrav and yop correctly...
By the way, you can see their screenshots also
--- End quote ---
Well QT and wxWidgets almost do the same job. Many people prefer wxWidgets because is free for comercial applications, and for independent and small teams of programmers willing to make some money for their knowledge is great.
Commercial support of QT is good as I have heard, but really expensive, and you have to paid for updates, and to use special parts of the code for commercial applications, while theres plenty documentation of wxWidgets.
I have never tried QT because I'm a programmer trying to make some money, not to spend it on costly tools. Also imagine, how programmers will make money if they don't make custom applications for companies. There are small companies that doesn't want to pay so much for an application. Here wxWidgets is a life saver.
For example:
QT license prices are thousands of dollars and you sell your program for $800 dollars, what are you gaining or how you can compete in price with others?
Also I have seen that QT on windows is not so fast than wxWidgets, I have work with scribus (a desktop publishing application made on qt) to make newspapers and is some kind of slow drawing graphics, but in the other part theres no desktop publishing software made on wxWidgets I think, so I'm not so sure about this.
Here is information of the different toolkits with small comparisons with wxWidgets:
http://www.wxwidgets.org/wiki/index.php/WxWidgets_Compared_To_Other_Toolkits
Hope you got another point of view!.
Edit:
--- Quote from: incorrect user on September 19, 2007, 01:54:03 pm ---it says that "Qt applications run natively
--- End quote ---
Answering that question, that means that the code is compiled into machine code, not like Java or .Net, that compiles to a intermediate language or byte code. Also that while running the application has the look and feel of windows and mac.
Biplab:
--- Quote from: incorrect user on September 19, 2007, 01:54:03 pm ---Ok, but see http://trolltech.com/products/qt/features/index
it says that "Qt applications run natively - indistinguishable from native applications - compiled from a single source code-base on all major platforms" and "Using Qt delivers true platform independence - code once and deploy anywhere. Targeting a new platform demands little more than a simple recompile of a single source code-base"
I just think i've not understood mandrav and yop correctly...
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: incorrect user on September 19, 2007, 01:54:03 pm ---Ok, but see http://trolltech.com/products/qt/features/index
it says that "Qt applications run natively - indistinguishable from native applications - compiled from a single source code-base on all major platforms" and "Using Qt delivers true platform independence - code once and deploy anywhere. Targeting a new platform demands little more than a simple recompile of a single source code-base"
I just think i've not understood mandrav and yop correctly...
--- End quote ---
I'm quoting the following from wxWiki.
--- Quote ---# Qt doesn't have true native ports like wxWidgets does. What we mean by this is that even though Qt draws them quite realistically, Qt draws its own widgets on each platform. It's worth mentioning though that Qt comes with special styles for Mac OS X and Windows XP that use native APIs (Appeareance Manager on Mac OS X, UxTheme on Windows XP) for drawing standard widget primitives (e.g. scrollbars or buttons) exactly like any native application. Event handling, the resulting visual feedback and widget layout are always implemented by Qt.
* An approach similar to Qt's is achieved with wxUniversal.
* It should be noted that on KDE and Qtopia platforms, Qt is the native GUI library.
--- End quote ---
Refer the following link for the pricing details.
--- Quote ---http://trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/pricing
--- End quote ---
The pricing is Per-Developer and Per-Platform basis. So even if you write a commercial application on Windows (And the source code compiles on Linux without a single change), in order to sell it's Linux version, you need to buy extra Licenses. The minimum License price starts at $1.7K+. As JGM wrote, even if it has benefits, smaller companies find wxWidgets to be better in Licensing respect.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version